12\u201313 Pairing the bride with an incompatible husband is equated with the forbidden mixtures mentioned in Deut. 22:9\u201311. Cf. the equation of marriages between priests and Israelites with forbidden mixtures in 4QMMT B 75\u201382.
\n15\u201318 Elaboration of the laws of Deut. 22:13\u201321, regarding the groom who denies his bride\u2019s virginity.
\n17. trustworthy women Such women are also mentioned in 4Q159 2\u20134.
\nthe Examiner For this figure\u2019s authority in sectarian family matters, see comments on CD 13:16\u201318.<\/p>\n
CD 15:1\u201315
\nThe legal portion of CD begins here, in the middle of a passage prohibiting oaths by divine names and by the Torah. The preceding material has been lost.
\n1. Aleph and Lamedh \u2026 Aleph and Daleth That is, the divine names starting with these letters: El, Elohim, and Adonai. Numerous sources indicate that due to fear of perjury, Second Temple period groups were opposed to swearing or had hesitations about the use of divine names for this purpose. Rabbinic tradition eventually took the same view, and by the Gaonic period, oaths by divine names were no longer taken.
\nexcept for the oath of those who enter Oaths were apparently not categorically forbidden, but required of new members upon entry into the sect. Josephus reports that while Essenes avoided swearing by God, they were obliged to take \u201ctremendous oaths\u201d upon admission to the group (J.W. 2.135\u201339).
\n2. curses of the covenant Hebrew alot haberit. The phrase recalls the curses of Deut. 28:15\u201369, deemed \u201cterms of the covenant\u201d in 28:69 and \u201ccurses of the covenant\u201d in 29:20. Tannaitic literature indicates that, indeed, the words of this passage were adapted in oath formulas and that this passage was considered as constituting the \u201ccurses of the covenant\u201d (M. Shevu. 4:13; T. Shevu. 2:15). Alternatively, the curses mentioned here may be identified with the alot haberit pronounced at the annual sectarian covenant-renewal ceremony described in 1QS 2:5\u201318.
\nTorah of Moses The prohibition of swearing by the Torah can be understood as an extension of the prohibition of oaths in the name of God. Since the Torah contains the name of God, an oath by it would be as binding as an oath by the divine name (T. Shevu. 2:16; B. Ned. 14b; Ran, ad loc.) Alternatively, it may be seen as resulting from a fear of accidentally blaspheming the name of Moses, which was held in high respect (Josephus, J.W. 2.145).
\n3. profanes the name Alluding to Lev. 19:12.
\n3\u20134 The case involves an oath of adjuration imposed by the judges on a community member suspected of misappropriating the property of others. Some of the language is drawn from Lev. 5:21\u201326, where the penalty for such an offense includes the return of the full value of the property plus an additional fifth. A guilt offering is also prescribed. Neither of these penalties is mentioned here.
\n5. and die This implies that the penalty for profaning the divine name is death, either by divine action or at the hands of the court (cf. 4QDe 2 i 11). Philo requires the death penalty for false oaths (Spec. Laws 2.28), and the Rabbis prescribe death for the comparable crime of blasphemy (M. Sanh. 7:5; B. Sanh. 56a).
\nall of Israel The community sees itself as representing the entire nation. See comment on CD 3:12\u201313.
\n6. passing among those that are mustered The language derives from Exod. 30:14, which marks the age of such individuals as 20 years and older. This number is confirmed explicitly in 1QSa 1:9\u201310. In ancient Judaism, 20 was viewed as the age at which puberty, hence majority, was always completed in normal cases.
\n7. entire time of evil See comment on CD 2:8\u201310. Cf. 4:8\u20139; 6:10, 14; 12:23.
\neveryone who repents Like the children of current community members, outsiders who wish to gain admittance to the group must take an oath.
\n8. Examiner Hebrew: mevaker. This official oversaw the admission of new members to the community, supervised daily life, and maintained legal and financial records. Cf. CD 13:7\u201319; 14:8\u201312.
\nthe Many A favorite term used in sectarian writings to refer to the Qumran community. See especially 1QS 6\u20139.
\n9\u201310. all (his) heart [and with all] (his) soul Alluding to Deut. 6:5.
\n10. that which is found to be done during the en[tire tim]e of [evi]l This refers to the legal interpretations of the Torah revealed to the community, which will be in effect until the Messianic Age.
\n10\u201311 This rule is apparently intended to assist the Examiner with the identification of foolish candidates.
\n12\u201313 Once a candidate has been properly approved, his disobedience cannot be blamed on those who admitted him.
\n15. one complete year Cf. the same phrase as it appears in the more elaborate admission process described in 1QS 6:13\u201323.<\/p>\n
4QDa 8 i 6\u20139 (+ CD 15:15\u201317)<\/p>\n
The reading of the fragmentary lines in CD 15:15\u201317 has been enhanced by additional words provided by 4QDa. The passage is based on the laws of Lev. 21:16\u201324, which exclude priests with certain physical defects from serving in the Temple. Since the Qumran sect viewed itself as a temple and its members as priests, those who are considered unfit for priestly service in the Temple are to be denied admission to the covenant of the community. Similar interpretations of the restrictions of Lev. 21 are used in 1QSa 2:4\u20139 and 1QM 7:4\u20136.
\n9. for the hol[y] angels [are in their midst] The motivating anxiety behind these restrictions is that the angels dwelling amidst the Temple community, who represent God\u2019s presence itself, might be exposed to impurity and therefore depart.<\/p>\n
CD 16<\/p>\n
1\u20132 Although the preceding material is lost, these lines clearly continue the section dealing with admission of new members.
\n3\u20134. Book of the Divisions of the Times in their Jubilees and in their Weeks A reference to the book of Jubilees, which was clearly an authoritative work for the author of this passage. A similar name for this book appears in the prologue to Jubilees itself.
\n5. Mastema Another epithet for the demonic leader of the forces of darkness. Cf. Jub. 11:5; 17:16; 18:9. Elsewhere in the Damascus Document, this figure is called \u201cBelial.\u201d
\n6. therefore, Abraham was circumcised Abraham\u2019s fulfillment of the covenant of circumcision is exemplary and viewed as a bulwark against Mastema\u2019s deleterious powers. Cf. Jub. 15:26\u201327, where those who remain uncircumcised are designated \u201cchildren of destruction\u201d destined to be obliterated from the earth.
\nday of his knowing That is, knowing God. Cf. Jub. 12:19\u201320; M. Avod. Zar. 1.
\n6\u20137. the utterance of your lips take heed to fulfill A citation and adaptation of Deut. 23:24. The connection of this verse with the following laws results from the appearance of the phrase \u201cutterance of the lips\u201d (motza sefatayim) in Deut. 23:24 and Num. 30:13. The author took both of these scriptural passages as referring to the same regulations. The same identification is made in Temple Scroll (11Q19) 52:11\u201354:7.
\n7. binding oath Cf. Num. 30:14.
\n8. price of death Josephus reports that Essenes would die of starvation rather than break their oath to abstain from the impure food of outsiders (J.W. 2.143).
\nlet him not redeem it That is, the oath is valid and he may not withdraw from it. Contrast Rabbinic tradition, according to which oaths to fulfill or transgress something already required by the Torah are invalid since the entire people of Israel has already sworn to fulfill the commandments at Sinai (B. Shevu. 27a).
\n9. let him not fulfill it Rabbinic tradition agrees that an oath calling for the abrogation of the Torah is not to be kept (M. Ned. 2:2; T. Ned. 1:4). For an oath to transgress, see 1 En. 6:4\u20135.
\n10. [conce]rning This section heading typifies the division of the Laws of the Damascus Document into sections classified by subject. Cf., for example, CD 16:13; 10:14. Such headings help reveal the literary units from which the larger text was composed. The abstract apodictic legal formulation recalls that of the Mishnah.
\n10\u201312 These rulings expand upon the laws of Num. 30:4\u201317. While in Numbers the father\u2019s power to annul an oath is mentioned before that of the husband, here the order is reversed.
\n12. transgress the covenant That this type of oath must be nullified indicates that it was considered valid. For the Rabbis, such an oath had no validity at all. See comment on line 8.
\n13. donations Made to the Temple.
\nviolently acquired Cf. the discussion of the unfit status of stolen animals for sacrifice in B. Suk. 30a.
\n14\u201315. the food of [his] mou[th] Apparently a prohibition against devoting one\u2019s own food in order to prevent others from benefiting from it. Cf. Matt. 15:5 and parallels.
\n15. each one t[ra]ps his neighbor (with) a ban A proof text from Mic. 7:2. Here, the word \u201cban\u201d (\u1e25erem) appears to be used as in Lev. 27:28, where it is stated that goods falling in this category are not redeemable.<\/p>\n
CD 9<\/p>\n
1 Based on the legal exegesis of Lev. 27:29 and 20:23 (and perhaps Gen. 9:6), this law appears to order capital punishment for those who bring about the death of a person by the Gentile authorities. The death penalty is mandated for informers in Temple Scroll as well (11Q19 64:7\u20138).
\n2\u20134 This law defines the prohibitions against taking vengeance and bearing a grudge in Lev. 19:18 as referring to the leveling of an accusation against one\u2019s fellow without formal reproof before witnesses (cf. 1QS 5:25\u20136:1). The obligation to reprove one\u2019s comrade is mentioned in Lev. 19:17 and cited in CD 9:7\u20138.
\n5 This citation of Nah. 1:2 serves to emphasize the prohibitions of Lev. 19:18. It is taken to mean that only God may take vengeance or bear a grudge.
\n6\u20138 There is a time limit to the fulfillment of the law of reproof of Lev. 19:17. The phrase \u201cfrom day to day\u201d is here adapted from Num. 30:15, which specifies the time frame during which a husband may annul the vow of his wife. Apparently, the Dead Sea sect interpreted the phrase as referring to sunset on the day that the crime was witnessed.
\n6. a capital offense Does this whole law apply only to capital cases and not others? From CD 9:22 it seems that the same law operates in noncapital matters.
\n7. his iniquity is upon him The accuser is apparently considered guilty of the very same crime for which he brought charges.
\n9\u201310. \u201clet not your hand help you\u201d The quotation is not biblical and may derive from an unknown sectarian document (cf. 1QS 6:25\u201327, which is likewise based on this quotation). Alternatively, it may constitute an interpretation of 1 Sam. 25:26. The force of this law is to forbid the taking of an oath outside of court. In this way, vain or false oaths could be prevented.
\n10\u201312 This law applies the general oath of adjuration of Lev. 5:1, which is meant to compel individuals with relevant knowledge of a crime to step forward as witnesses, to the specific case of stolen property. This oath may be compared with the tannaitic \u201coath of testimony\u201d (shevuat ha-edut), according to which a litigant could adjure a witness in a case regarding money or moveable property and the witness would respond \u201camen.\u201d
\n12. bear guilt Indicating an obligation to bring a sacrifice to the Temple. See comment on CD 6:11\u201314.
\n13\u201315 The law is based on Num. 5:6\u20138, which deals with the problem of the case in which there is no original owner to whom to make restitution. Although the crimes requiring such restitution are not specified there, they likely were seen as including those mentioned in Lev. 5:21\u201323, which describes the same institution. These include a false oath sworn to retain possession of a deposit, an investment, stolen or withheld property, or a lost object. Although the extra penalty of one fifth of the value of the principal is not mentioned here, it is to be assumed that this was to be given to the priest as well (cf. 4QDe 2 ii 10).
\n14\u201315 Deuteronomy 22:2 requires the discoverer of lost property, the owner of which is unknown, to hold it in his house until the owner comes looking for it. Here, by requiring that the property be given to the priests, the author has interpreted the Law in light of Num. 5:6\u20138. The innovation is perhaps dependent on the interpretation of the phrase \u201cyour house\u201d (betekha) in Deut. 22:2 to mean the Temple.
\n16. they shall retain it That is, the priests. Rabin points out that their never taking official possession indicates that the author does not share the Rabbinic concept of \u201cabandonment\u201d (ye\u2019ush), which allows finders of certain types of ownerless items to claim possession immediately. See B. BM 22b.
\n16\u201323 According to this interpretation of Deut. 17:6, the testimony of single witnesses to separate commissions of the same offense can be combined to convict an offender. The reference to \u201cthree witnesses\u201d in that verse is understood as the required number for capital crimes, and the reference to \u201ctwo witnesses\u201d as the required number for monetary crimes. This differs from Rabbinic tradition, which does not allow for the combination of the testimony of single witnesses to separate crimes and sees Deut. 17:6 as indicating that the weight of three witnesses is no more than the weight of two in capital or noncapital cases (see M. Mak. 1:7\u20138; cf. Temple Scroll [11Q19] 64:8). The Damascus Document may in fact agree with the Rabbinic position that, when together, two witnesses are enough for a capital case.
\n18. write it down A list of such rebukes listed by the Examiner seems to have been preserved in 4Q477.
\n21\u201323. purity \u2026 purity That is, the pure food of the community. Those reported as transgressing, but by too few witnesses for a conviction, were still banned from this food because their transgression had rendered them ritually impure.<\/p>\n
CD 10<\/p>\n
1. he As in Rabbinic law (Sifrei Dev. 190; M. Shevu. 1:1; M. RH 1:8), women were not considered as qualified witnesses by the Qumran community.
\n1\u20132. the age to pass among those that are mustered See comment on CD 15:6.
\n2. God-fearing Possibly a designation for members of the community. Cf. CD 20:19; 1QS 1:1. This formulation of the law leaves open the question of whether a nonmember may serve as a witness in a noncapital case.
\n2\u20133 Cf. the Rabbinic statements excluding certain types of transgressors from testimony (M. Sanh. 3:3; T. Sanh. 5:5; B. Sanh. 26b; cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.219).
\n3. the ordinance Hebrew: ha-mitzvah, a technical term for the sect\u2019s law as derived through scriptural exegesis. This would clearly exclude Jews who did not obey or were not privy to sectarian rulings.
\n4. ten Tannaitic tradition mentions a series of courts of 3 and 23 and a high court of 71 (M. Sanh. 1; T. Sanh. 7:1). However, the court of 10 is not unparalleled in Jewish law.
\n5. according to the time Judges were chosen in accord with the current requirements of the sectarian legal system. Alternatively, the phrase may allude to their selection for a certain term of service.
\n5\u20136. four from the tribe of Levi and Aaron and from Israel six The requirement that priests be part of the court derives from Deut. 17:9. The obligation to include both priests and Levites is also mentioned in Temple Scroll (11Q19) 57:11\u201314. Tannaitic tradition requires that priests and Levites be part of the Great Sanhedrin (Sifrei Dev. 153; cf. M. Sanh. 4:2; T. Sanh. 7:1; B. Yoma 26a) and also makes reference to a court of priests (M. Ket. 1:5; T. Sanh. 4:7). The requirement of four judges from the \u201ctribe of Levi and Aaron\u201d may be explained as calling for one from each of the three levitical families (described in Numbers) and one from the Aaronide priesthood.
\n6. book of Hagi The identity of this work is uncertain, but it may refer to the Torah. The term may derive from Josh. 1:8: \u201cRecite [ve-hagita] it [the book of the Law] day and night.\u201d Cf. CD 13:2; 14:7\u20138.
\nfoundations of the covenant That is, sectarian exegesis.
\n6\u20137. between 25 and 60 years old The lower number derives from Num. 8:24, where the minimum age of service of the Levites is 25 (cf. 1QM 7:3; 1QSa 1:12\u201313). The maximum age of 60 is derived from Lev. 27:3, which concerns the monetary valuation of people dedicated to the LORD. The maximum age limit of 50 for levitical service given in Num. 8:25 was not accepted.
\n7\u201310 This theological explanation of the upper age limit stems from the view of senility and the diminution of the human lifespan expressed in Jub. 23:9\u201311.
\n11. bathe For ritual purification.
\ndirty Cf. the water mixtures considered unfit in M. Mik. 7.
\ninsufficient to cover Cf. the Rabbinic requirement that there be enough water in the ritual bath \u201cfor his entire body to be submerged\u201d (B. Er. 4b).
\n12\u201313 Like water in a vessel, the pool is prone to contamination since it lacks the quantity required to bring about purification. Cf. M. Mik. 2:1\u20132.
\n14\u201316 Similar to the Rabbinic concept of tosefet melakhah (B. Yoma 81a\u2013b; Sifra, Emor 14:7\u20139), the last part of Friday (immediately before sunset) is added to the Sabbath. This law proscribes all labor, thus making late Friday afternoon similar in observance to the Sabbath itself.
\n16. distant from the gate by its fullness That is, the \u201cfullness,\u201d or entire diameter of the sun is still above the \u201cgate\u201d or horizon. A similar usage of the term \u201cgate\u201d (sha\u2019ar) appears in the traditional Jewish liturgies for the evening and Sabbath morning.
\n16\u201317. for that is what he said: \u201cGuard the Sabbath day to make it holy\u201d A rare case in which a law in the Damascus Document is explicitly derived from a biblical text. The citation is from Deut. 5:12, and the law is based on the word \u201cguard\u201d (shamor) in this verse. In the earlier statement of the Ten Commandments, the directive is rather to \u201cremember\u201d (zakhor) the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8). The substitution of zakhor with shamor in Deut. 5:12 may have suggested to the author that it was necessary to add to the Sabbath in order to avert its accidental desecration. The tannaim related the same verse to the addition of time after the Sabbath.
\n17\u201318. on the Sabbath day one shall not talk disgraceful and empty talk This clause serves as a general introduction to the following three subcategories of offense, which are derived from an implicit exegesis of Isa. 58:13. The Rabbinic counterparts of these regulations use the same verse. See M. Shab. 23:1\u20133; T. Shab. 7:5\u20137; B. Shab. 150a\u2013b.
\n18. he shall not lend his neighbor anything Cf. the injunction of M. Shab. 23:1, which allows loans on the Sabbath as long as the terminology of money lending is avoided.
\nhe shall not make judgments Cf. M. Betz. 5:2, which forbids judgment on the Sabbath. Here the prohibition is not against holding formal court sessions, but rather against engaging in private business argument.
\n19. he shall not talk about the work and the task to be done the next morning Similar prohibitions are found in the Talmud (B. Shab. 150a\u2013b; cf. Philo, Moses 2.210\u201311). Cf. Jub. 50:8, which mandates the death penalty for one \u201cwho says anything about work on it\u2014that he is to set out on a trip on it, or about any selling or buying.\u201d
\n20\u201321. let no one walk in the field to do his workday business (on) the Sabbath The phrasing echoes Isa. 58:13. This law may prohibit walking to the edge of the Sabbath limit in order to leave on a journey just after the end of the Sabbath. This same prohibition is echoed in M. Shab. 23:3 and T. Shab. 7:10\u201313.
\n21. let him not walk outside his town more than 1,000 cubits This law is an interpretation of the command of Exod. 16:29: \u201cLet everyone remain where he is: let no one leave his place on the seventh day.\u201d Like the 2,000-cubit limit set for grazing animals on the Sabbath (CD 11:5\u20136), the figure of 1,000 cubits is based on the description of the boundaries of the pasture land of the Levitical cities in Num. 35:2\u20135. The Rabbis also use the passage in Numbers to define Exod. 16:29. However, they rule more leniently that the Sabbath limit (te\u1e25um Shabbat) is 2,000 cubits from the city (M. Sot. 5:3). Interestingly, the Talmud questions why the Sabbath limit might not have been 1,000 cubits (B. Er. 51a).
\n22. let no one eat anything on the Sabbath day except that which is prepared The same law appears in Jub. 2:29. The Hebrew term for prepared food here (mukhan) is used in a similar context by the tannaim (M. Shab. 24:4; B. Pes. 56b; B. Hul. 14a) and derives from Exod. 16:5 (veheikhinu), which refers to the double portion of manna gathered on the sixth day.
\n22\u201323 Only foods within the limits of the settlement before the Sabbath may be eaten. The reasoning may lie in the view that outside foods are considered unprepared.
\n23. camp This is the only reference to a camp in the section of the Laws treating general religious regulations. However, in the section dealing with communal legislation, the \u201ccamp\u201d is the principal form of organization (cf. CD 15:14; 9:11; 13:4, 5, 7, 13, 16).<\/p>\n
CD 11<\/p>\n
1. on the way, when he goes down to bathe Bathing here may refer to the ritual cleansing of the hands performed upon rising, before eating, and possibly before prayer.
\n1\u20132. he may drink while he stands, but not draw (water) into any vessel The same prohibition appears in Jub. 2:29 and 50:8, as well as in Karaite and Falashan sources. According to the Mishnah, one may draw water from a well within the private domain, but not from a source in the public domain (M. Er. 8:6\u20138; cf. M. Shab. 11:4).
\n2. he shall not send a foreigner to do his business on the Sabbath day This prohibition accords with the opinion of the House of Shammai and is more stringent than the view of the House of Hillel, which permits non-Jews to carry out labors if asked to do so before the Sabbath begins (M. Shab. 1:7\u20139; T. Shab. 1:21\u201322).
\n3\u20134 The tannaim also require the wearing of clean clothes on the Sabbath (Mek. d\u2019Rashbi, Yitro 20:8), as well as on festivals and on the Day of Atonement.
\n4. frankincense For the use of spices to aromatize clothing, see Ps. 45:9. The use of frankincense for perfuming purposes is known from Song of Sol. 3:6; 4:6, 14.
\n4\u20135. let no one intermingle (purities with others) voluntarily on the Sabbath The meaning of this law is uncertain, and several interpretations have been proposed. It may prohibit the mixture of private and communal property (i.e., declaring private property available for communal use) on the Sabbath. Some scholars prefer to emend the text from \u201cintermingle\u201d (yit\u2019arev) to \u201cstarve oneself\u201d (yitra\u2019ev). In this case, this law would prohibit fasting on the Sabbath. Alternatively, it has been suggested that in Qumran Hebrew the word \u201cintermingle\u201d means \u201cto become ritually impure,\u201d and thus this law prohibits sexual relations on the Sabbath (see comment on 4QDe 2 i 16\u201319).
\n5\u20136. let no one walk after an animal to graze it outside his town more than 2,000 cubits This rule is based on the figure in Num. 35:5. See comment on CD 10:21.
\n6\u20137 These two laws are linked to the previous one. They make it clear that animals can be pastured only if they can be relied upon to remain within the 2,000-cubit limit. The prohibition of the driving of animals may be an interpretation of Exod. 20:10 and Deut. 5:14, which forbid the working of animals on the Sabbath. The tannaim generally forbade the handling of animals on the Sabbath. However, they ruled that if the animal had fled into the public domain, one may push it toward the private domain or pull it by reins or ropes.
\n7\u20138. let no one carry (things) from the house outside and from outside into the house The prohibition rephrases Jer. 17:21\u201322. The phrasing of this law in Jub. 2:29\u201330 and M. Shab. 1:1 seem to be similarly based.
\n8. booth A private booth, or sukkah, for the feast of Sukkot, which is considered a temporary house. See M. Suk., passim.
\n9. let (him) not open a sealed vessel This law accords with the opinion of Rabbi Judah (ben Ilai) in M. Shab. 22:3. According to his view, this action is forbidden because it is a form of \u201crepairing a vessel\u201d (metaken keli). However, the majority opinion of the sages permits it.
\n9\u201310. let no one carry spices on his person to go out or come in on the Sabbath This law may refer to the custom of women to wear small ornamental perfume bottles around their necks (cf. Isa. 3:20 and Song of Sol. 1:13). These bottles were not considered part of the attire and thus subject to the law against carrying from domain to domain (cf. CD 11:7\u20138). The tannaim also prohibited the wearing of such bottles on the Sabbath (M. Shab. 6:3; T. Shab. 4:11).
\n10\u201311. let him not move within a dwelling house rock or soil The prohibition of handling these items even inside a private home is similar to the Rabbinic law of muktzeh. This law stipulates that objects not expected or designated to be used on the Sabbath could not be handled thereon. Its intent was to help prevent transgression of the Sabbath laws.
\n11. let a nurse not carry an infant to go out or come in on the Sabbath Tannaitic law also forbids the carrying of children who could not walk from domain to domain (M. Shab. 18:2).
\n12. let no one urge on Cf. the prohibition of working one\u2019s slave on the Sabbath in Exod. 20:10 and Deut. 5:14. The law here appears to accord with Philo\u2019s view that a slave should not do any work at all for his or her master, even if it did not violate the Sabbath (Spec. Laws 2.66\u201368). According to tannaitic law, a Jew may not instruct a non-Jew to engage in forbidden labors on the Sabbath. However, a Jew may benefit from labor performed by a non-Jew voluntarily (see M. Shab. 16:6).
\n13. let no one deliver (the young of) an animal on the Sabbath day Tannaitic law also prohibits delivering (i.e., removing the fetus from the uterus) animals on the Sabbath or festivals (M. Shab. 18:3).
\n13\u201314. and if it falls into a pit or a ditch, let him not raise it on the Sabbath This law accords with tannaitic law, which rules that the fallen animal should be given food to sustain it, but helped out of the pit only after the Sabbath (T. Shab. 14:3). More leniently, the amoraim permitted the placing of cushions beneath the animal to allow it to escape (B. Shab. 128b).
\n14\u201315. let no one rest in a place near Gentiles on the Sabbath A similar constraint, based on the phrase \u201cyour dwelling places\u201d (moshevotekhem) in Lev. 23:3, was in force among the Samaritans and Karaites.
\n15. let no one desecrate the Sabbath for the sake of wealth and profit on the Sabbath This law apparently prohibits Sabbath violation in order to save the loss of property. Cf. T. Er. 3:5.
\n16\u201317 This law forbids the a priori handling of instruments associated with forbidden labor (muktzeh; see comment on lines 10\u201311) when saving a life on the Sabbath. By contrast, Rabbinic Judaism permits it (B. Yoma 84b).
\n17\u201318 This law is based on a variant reading and out-of-context interpretation of Lev. 23:38 (the same reading appears in the Vulgate). The restriction conflicts with Num. 28:10, which implies that the burnt offering was offered in addition to the usual daily offerings (tamid). It is possible that the author of this law understood the word al in that verse to mean \u201cinstead of\u201d rather than \u201cin addition to.\u201d
\n18\u201320 This law is linked to the last law of the Sabbath code in the previous line by its common concern for the altar. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.19, who reports that the Essenes would send offerings to the Temple through others.
\n20\u201321 An adaptation of Prov. 15:8 meant to emphasize that prayer is to be seen as a valid replacement of Temple sacrifice. Cf. the similar attitudes expressed in 1QS 9:3\u20135 and 4QFlorilegium (4Q174) 1\u20132 i 6\u20137.
\n22. house of prostration This obscure term may refer to a synagogue or a sectarian place of worship. More likely, it is an area of the Temple designated for prostration during the sacrificial service.
\nunclean after washing An intermediate stage of impurity, during which access to this sacred space was still forbidden. Cf. M. Tam. 5:6.
\ntrumpets of the assembly According to Num. 10:10, blown at the time of sacrificial service.<\/p>\n
CD 12<\/p>\n
1\u20132 The intent is clearly to avoid defilement of the Temple. Cf. Temple Scroll (11Q19) 45:11\u201312, which bars entrance to the city of the sanctuary for three days after sexual intercourse.
\n1. city of the sanctuary This may refer either to the entire city of Jerusalem or to the Temple precincts alone.
\n2. ruled by the spirits of Belial That is, possessed by evil spirits.
\n3. speaks apostasy Hebrew dibber sarah appears also in Deut. 13:6, where it describes the crime of the prophet and dream-diviner.
\njudgment of (one who communicates with) a ghost or a familiar spirit According to Lev. 20:27, these two shall be put to death.
\n4\u20136 This ruling seems to contradict the Torah (Exod. 35:2; Num. 15:35) and Jubilees (Jub. 50:8, 12\u201313), both of which require capital punishment for Sabbath desecration. Perhaps the text is dealing with some type of accidental transgression.
\n5. healed of it That is, of the evil spirit that caused him or her to violate the Sabbath. For the revelation of remedies capable of healing people from the effects of evil spirits, see Jub. 10:12\u201314.
\n6\u20137 A ruling forbidding Jews living under Jewish rule from abusing their power over non-Jews living in the area. It may also be understood as a polemic against the Hasmonean sovereigns, warning against military campaigns undertaken only to add territory or to amass spoils of war. Cf. 1QpHab 9:4\u20136.
\n7\u20138 A prohibition against stealing from non-Jews. Cf. T. BK 10:15, which prohibits stealing from non-Jews because it leads to the profanation of God\u2019s name.
\n8. association of Israel This ruling institution will prevent abuse and guarantee that the conflict is just.
\n8\u20139 Intended to ensure that Jews did not support idolatrous worship even indirectly. A similar prohibition appears in Rabbinic law (M. Avod. Zar. 1:5\u20136; cf. B. Avod. Zar. 15a; T. Avod. Zar. 1:21).
\n9\u201310 This law forbids selling produce of grain and grapes to non-Jews. The reference to \u201chis granary\u201d and \u201chis vat\u201d may imply that this produce has been harvested but not yet tithed. In this case the law would be saying that selling to non-Jews does not exempt produce from tithing.
\n10\u201311 This law concerns slaves who would be classified under the Rabbinic rubric of eved kena\u2019ani, literally \u201cCanaanite slave.\u201d These were non-Jewish slaves who had commenced a process of conversion to Judaism. The same ruling appears in the Mishnah, according to which such slaves automatically gained their freedom if sold to non-Jews (M. Git. 4:6). The purpose was to guarantee that slaves preparing themselves to convert would be able to fulfill the commandments that they had taken upon themselves to observe.
\n11. let no one pollute his soul Adaptation of Lev. 11:43.
\n12\u201313 This refers to tiny organisms that might be in the water. Cf. the yavh. ushim (insects) of T. Ter. 7:11.
\n12. larvae of bees This prohibition may have required the filtering of honey.
\n13\u201314. and they should not eat fish unless they were torn alive and their blood sh[e]d According to Gen. Rab. 7:2, Jacob of Kefar Naborai taught that fish must be ritually slaughtered. Both Samaritans and Karaites forbade fish blood. Rabbinic tradition does not call for any special slaughtering process to render fish permissible to eat (see B. Hul. 27b).
\n14\u201315 The Karaites forbade locusts that died naturally. Saadia Gaon disagreed.
\n15\u201317 Liquids serve as media for ritual impurity in both Qumranite and Rabbinic law. The scriptural basis of this principle is Lev. 11:34, 38, which states that food becomes impure after touching liquid. For the defiling quality of oil for the Essenes, see Josephus, J.W. 2.123. Cf. Temple Scroll (11Q19) 49:12.
\n17\u201318 As Rabin observes, this law is stricter than the mishnaic ruling, according to which nails are defilable in such a situation only when used as tools (M. Kelim 12:5).
\n19\u201322. the rule \u2026 not be cursed A chain of concluding statements referring back to the previously stated laws and directing this legislation toward Israel at large. Cf. CD 15:5 and 16:1, where the covenant community envisions itself as representative of the entire nation.
\n19\u201320 See comment on CD 6:17\u201318.
\n21. the Master Hebrew maskil. A leader well versed in the doctrines of the community who was expected both to teach those doctrines to fellow members and to typify the community\u2019s way of life.
\n22\u201323 An introduction to the following legislation covering the internal regulations of the community, directed toward present members organized in \u201ccamps.\u201d<\/p>\n
CD 13<\/p>\n
12:23\u201313:1. until the arising of the messiah of Aaron and Israel See comments on CD 19:10\u201311 and 4:8\u20139.
\n1\u20132. thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens Organization of individual camps was modeled on the Israelite camp in the wilderness. Cf. Exod. 18:25. It is unclear whether this reflects reality or an ideal. The same organization is expected in War Scroll, and enforced by Judah Maccabee according to 1 Macc. 3:55.
\n2. priest For the leading role and authority of the priests for the community, cf. 1QS 5:2, 9; 1QSa 1:2, 24; 2:3.
\nbook of Hagi See comment on CD 10:6.
\n2\u20133. by his word shall they all be ruled Adaptation of Gen. 41:40, which speaks of Joseph\u2019s authority over the Egyptians.
\n3\u20134 The leadership role falls to the second tier in the hierarchical division priests-Levites-Israelites. For the organization of the community according to this biblical system, see CD 14:4\u20136, which adds a fourth class: proselytes (cf. 1QS 2:19\u201322). Rabbinic law similarly allows for non-priests to make rulings about skin afflictions (M. Neg. 3:1; Sifra Tazria Parashat Negaim 1:8\u201310).
\n4\u20137 No matter his ignorance, the priest is responsible for the official determination of the skin disease. Cf. Deut. 21:5. A similar ruling appears in M. Neg. 3:1.
\n6. cause him to be confined Cf. Lev. 13.
\n6\u20137. Examiner \u2026 Examiner See comment on CD 15:8.
\n7. let him instruct the Many Alluding to Dan. 11:33. Cf. the role of the Master (maskil) described in 1QS 9:18.
\n7\u20138 The information to be taught appears to coincide with the concerns of the Admonition, that is, God\u2019s actions throughout history and the mysterious motivations behind them. Cf. the phrase \u201cworks of God\u201d in CD 1:1\u20132 and 2:14\u201315.
\n9 This exhortative statement draws from Ps. 103:13 and Ezek. 34:12.
\n10 Drawing from Isa. 58:6 and Hosea 5:11. Cf. the use of the latter verse in CD 4:19.
\n11 A similar process of examination appears in 1QS 6:13\u201323.
\n12\u201313 More details of the role of the Examiner in the admission process are found in CD 15:5\u201315.
\n12. inscribe him A written record of members is also mentioned in CD 14:4.
\nlot of lig[ht] See comment on CD 20:4.
\n14. Sons of Dawn This epithet refers to community members and is paralleled by the phrase \u201cSons of Light.\u201d The name \u201cSons of Dawn\u201d may denote initiates at the beginning of the road to becoming full-blown Sons of Light. Cf. 4Q298.
\n15. from hand to hand This rule regulates business dealings between community members. Such dealings are to be predicated not on the commercial basis of trade, but on the fraternal concept of mutual help and exchange of goods and services. Cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.127; Philo, Good Person 78.
\n15\u201316 Perhaps the motivation behind this regulation is the avoidance of ritual defilement through trade relations.
\n16\u201318 These fragmentary lines appear to indicate that the Examiner was responsible for approving marriages and divorces and perhaps for disciplining the children of community members.
\n20 Apparently a conclusion to the section about the \u201csettlers of the camps\u201d beginning in CD 12:22\u201323.
\n22 This concluding statement may reveal that the rulings regarding this Master have here become merged with those regarding the Examiner.<\/p>\n
CD 14<\/p>\n
1. such as have not come from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah The continuation of a citation of Isa. 7:17 that began at the end of CD 13. The same verse is cited in the Admonition (CD 7:10\u201312). Here it appears to serve as a general concluding remark warning members not to violate the previous laws.
\n2. the covenant of God (is) trustworthy to save them Alluding to Ps. 89:29.
\nsnares of the pit The same phrase appears in 1QH 10:20\u201322, where it is associated with the \u201ccongregation of Belial,\u201d that is, Jews who are not members of the community.
\nfools are punished An allusion to Prov. 27:12. As in the Admonition, contemporary Jewish society is viewed as divided into two parts: community members and foolish outsiders destined for punishment.
\n3\u20136 Organization is according to the traditional genealogical hierarchical divisions. Cf. 1QS 6:8\u201310. This stands in some tension with 1QS 5:23\u201324, according to which a person\u2019s rank seems to be determined solely by merit.
\n3. shall all be mustered This meeting may be identical to the one described as occurring in the third month of the year in 4QDa 11 17.
\n4\u20136. proselyte(s) \u2026 proselyte(s) Though they were accepted among the ranks of the community (cf. CD 12:10\u201311), their status was beneath that of full Israelites. CD 6:21 mentions that the proselyte may be in need of economic help.
\n4. inscribed by their names See comment on CD 13:12.
\n6\u20137. the priest who is appointed to preside over the Many Cf. the figure mentioned in 1QS 6:14.
\n7. from 30 to 60 years old Thirty is the minimum age for the service of Levites according to Num. 4:3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47. See comment on CD 10:6\u20137. For the exegetical derivation and theological explanation of the upper age limit, see comments on CD 10:6\u201310.
\n7\u20138. book of Hagi \u2026 precepts of the Torah Perhaps referring to the Torah and sectarian exegesis respectively. Cf. the similar twofold division in CD 10:6.
\n9. from 30 t[o] 50 years old Cf. the age limits for levitical service in Num. 4.
\n10. every language of their cla[n]s Was the community multilingual? A similar expectation was faced by the members of the Sanhedrin. See B. Sanh. 17a\u2013b.
\n11 For related regulations concerning speaking at communal sessions, see 1QS 6:11\u201313.
\n12\u201313. (the) wage of at least two days per month That is, at least eight percent. The notion of wages presupposes a system of private ownership and stands in tension with the practice of communal ownership espoused in 1QS 1:11\u201313; 3:2; 5:1\u20133; 6:18\u201323. There is no space for the words \u201cper month\u201d in the parallel text of 4QDa 10 i 6. Thus that text may envision this contribution as a onetime event.
\n14. they shall support the poor and the destitute Alluding to Ezek. 16:49.
\n15. captured by a foreign people This would call for funds for a ransom. Cf. M. Shek. 2:5.
\n16. no re[deemer] That is, no close relative to support her.
\nassociation The communal institution designated to deal with social problems.<\/p>\n
CD 14:18\u201322; 4QDa 10 i 11\u2013ii 15; 4QDb 9 vi 1\u20135; 4QDd 11 i 1\u20138; ii 1\u20132; 4QDe 7 i 1\u201315<\/p>\n
1\u20132 These lines constitute an introduction to a communal penal code very similar to that found in 1QS 6:24\u20137:25. CD is very fragmentary and breaks off here, but much of these lines and the following text of the penal code has been preserved in 4QDa,b,d,e.
\n1 On the messiahs of Aaron and Israel and the period before their arrival, see comments on CD 19:10\u201311 and 4:8\u20139.
\n2. their sin will be atoned This appears to be the happy result of the arrival of the priestly messiah, the messiah of Aaron. Cf. 4Q541 9 i 2; 11QMelchizedek (11Q13) 2:6\u20138.
\n3. purity That is, the pure food of the community. See comments on CD 9:21\u201323.
\n4. [pu]nished for 60 days In the parallel ruling of 1QS 6:24\u201325, \u201cpunishment\u201d refers to the withholding of a quarter of the offender\u2019s bread ration.
\n5. bears a grudge To be understood in light of CD 9:6\u20138, according to which the biblical command against bearing a grudge is defined as charging the offender without properly reproving him or her.
\n6. [ins]ults Cf. 1QS 7:4\u20135, which adds that the insult must have been delivered intentionally.
\n7. speaks foolishly See comment on CD 10:17\u201318.
\n8\u201312 Regulations dealing with proper decorum during communal meetings.
\n15. hand Perhaps a euphemism for \u201cpenis.\u201d
\n18\u201320 These lines have been reconstructed on the basis of 1QS 7:15\u201317. For the biblical prohibition against slander, see Lev. 19:16.
\n21\u201323 Punishment of rebellious members. Cf. 1QS 7:18\u201320.
\n24. leave and [not re]turn again Cf. 1QS 7:22, which limits the penalty of expulsion to a veteran of at least ten years.
\n25. his food The case may deal with acquiring the food of an expelled member. Cf. 1QS 7:24\u201325.
\n26 The type of sexual misconduct is not specified. It may deal with unnatural types of intercourse or intercourse without the intent of procreation. Cf. the prohibition against intercourse with a pregnant woman in 4QDe 2 ii 16.
\n28 Conclusion to the penal code.<\/p>\n
4QDa 11 1\u201321; 4QDe 7 i\u2013ii<\/p>\n
This passage follows immediately after the end of the penal code and describes a ceremony for the expulsion of rebellious community members. It constitutes the end of the entire work.
\n0 This line derives from 4QDe 7 i 15\u201316.
\nmake it known This seems to indicate that violations of the Law must be reported.
\n0\u20131. the priest [app]ointed over the Many Also mentioned in CD 14:6\u20137. Cf. 4QDa 11 8.
\nhis judgment This may refer to punishment for the abrogation of one of the rules in the penal code or to the punishment of expulsion from the community described in the following lines.
\n2. the soul that sins unwittingly See, for example, Lev. 4:2, 27. The acceptance of punishment is here likened to the atonement brought about by a sin or guilt offering (see Lev. 4\u20135).
\n3\u20134. \u201cI will get me to the ends of heaven and will not smell the savor of your sweet odors\u201d A combination of Deut. 30:4 and Lev. 26:31.
\n5 The first citation comes from Joel 2:12 and the second from 2:13.
\n5\u20136. rejects these regulations The rebellious member has rejected the sectarian legal interpretations of the Torah.
\n10\u201311. led them astray in a chaos without a way See comment on CD 1:15.
\n12. which if a man does them, he shall live See comment on CD 3:15\u201316.
\nboundaries For boundaries as referring to sectarian legal rulings, see comment on CD 20:25. See also 4QDa 1 a\u2013b 4.
\n13. sheep See comment on CD 19:9.
\n16 The precise punishment for failing to comply with the decision to expel a community member is unclear. Cf. the reference to written records kept by the Examiner in CD 9:18.
\n17. third month Perhaps the meeting is set for the 15th day of the month, coinciding with Shavuot, the festival identified by the Pharisaic-Rabbinic tradition as the time the Torah was given at Sinai. Cf. the annual covenant-renewal ceremony described in 1QS 1:16\u20133:12.
\n18\u201321 A concluding statement to the entire work emphasizing the importance of following sectarian legal rulings during the preordained periods of God\u2019s wrath. As the Admonition makes clear, these Laws are viewed as remaining in effect until the dawn of the Messianic Age. See comment on CD 4:8\u20139.<\/p>\n
Temple Scroll<\/p>\n
Lawrence H. Schiffman<\/p>\n
The Temple Scroll (11Q19; also known as 11QTa), which presents itself as a rewritten Torah, begins with the renewal of the Sinaitic covenant of Exod. 34 and then turns to the building of the Temple in Exod. 35. From this point, the scroll follows the order of the canonical Torah. The author begins by explaining the structure, furnishings, and equipment of the Temple, then digresses to the offerings that used these structures or equipment, only to return to the scriptural order. In the process, he treats the architecture of the Temple and its precincts, and many other matters: laws of sacrifice, priestly dues and tithes, ritual calendar, festival offerings, ritual purity and impurity, sanctity of the Temple, laws of the king and the army, prophecy, foreign worship, witnesses, laws of war, and various marriage and sex laws. While the author\/redactor drew on the canonical Torah, the textual substratum for the scroll was not in all respects identical to that of the Masoretic Text (MT) but contained innumerable minor variants.
\nThe author gathered together all material on each subject from the Five Books of Moses and merged it into a unified text. Whenever the various Pentateuchal texts presented apparent contradictions, the author harmonized these in accordance with his own brand of halakhic interpretation, in some ways similar to the midrash of the later Rabbis. The author uses the first person to represent his text as the word of God.
\nThe author tells us explicitly that the scroll describes the Temple in which Israel worshiped before the end of days (11QT 29:2\u201310), but the Temple it presents is an ideal one, built upon the principles of the author (or authors; it is uncertain whether there is one author or several), that would be replaced in the end of days with a divinely created sanctuary.<\/p>\n
Authorship and History<\/p>\n
The existence of the Temple Scroll was announced in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in 1967. Khalil Iskandar, known as Kando, a Christian antiquities dealer in Bethlehem, had kept the scroll under the floor of his home in a shoebox, with other fragments in a cigar box, and some hidden elsewhere. Yigal Yadin located Kando after the war, and eventually purchased the scroll for the Israel Museum\u2019s Shrine of the Book exhibit, in Jerusalem for $105,000.
\nAs a consequence of its storage, the scroll is damaged, having lost the top third of its text as well as some columns at the beginning. What is preserved is 8 meters long (26 feet) with 65 columns of writing on 19 sheets of leather sewn together. Had it been complete, the entire scroll would have been approximately 8.75 meters long. It is written in two hands, one scribe writing columns 1\u20135 and another the remainder of the scroll (with some text duplicated in both hands). Yadin suggests that the first scribe made repairs by rewriting the first part of the scroll, which had become worn through use. The scribal techniques and script are typical of the other Qumran manuscripts, and the scroll\u2019s language has affinities both to Rabbinic texts and to the Qumran dialect.
\nYadin was the first to publish the Temple Scroll in a Hebrew edition (1977) and a revised English edition (1983). The editing of 11QT posed particular problems. Because the scroll had been tightly rolled, the writing had left impressions on the back of adjacent columns, even at points where that text was not preserved on the front. Yadin produced mirror photos of this writing to supplement the text. Further identification of letters that Yadin was unable to read was later suggested by Elisha Qimron. Bruce and Kenneth Zuckerman rephotographed the scroll in color with high resolution and special lighting techniques, thereby providing some additional readings.
\nA second manuscript of the Temple Scroll from cave 11 is designated 11QTb. Both 11QT and 11QTb were written during the Herodian period, and 11QT was carbon dated to 97 BCE\u20131 CE. Passages from the Temple Scroll are overlapped in part by 4Q365, one of the fragments of the reworked Pentateuch, and some cave 4 fragments overlap sufficiently to indicate the existence of either sources for our document or closely related texts. 4Q524, the oldest text of the Temple Scroll, has been dated to the second half of the 2nd century BCE.
\nThe key to dating the Temple Scroll as a whole is the passage called the Law of the King (11QT 56:12\u201359:21), the most sustained example of original composition in the entire document; it was previously composed as a unit and then transferred into the Temple Scroll. Yadin argues that the Law of the King and the laws of conscription (11QT 56\u201359) were likely composed during the reign of John Hyrcanus (134\u2013104 BCE), against whose practices the scroll polemicizes. The Law of the King emphasizes the separation of the roles of High Priest and king and the need to constitute the gerousia, the \u201ccouncil of elders.\u201d It argues against the hiring of mercenaries, which were used extensively by John Hyrcanus. The Temple Scroll requires that the king have a special palace guard to protect him against kidnapping (an allusion to the kidnapping and murder of Jonathan the Hasmonean in 143 BCE [1 Macc. 13:24]). The text further polemicizes against campaigns such as those of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus when it prohibits wars with Egypt for the sake of accumulating wealth. Since the text reflects the historical experience of the Hasmoneans, Jonathan (160\u2013143 BCE), and John Hyrcanus, we must place the composition of the Law of the King, and hence of the scroll as a whole, no earlier than the second half of John Hyrcanus\u2019s reign.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
Many unique features distinguish the Temple Scroll from other biblical and Second Temple literature. The architecture of the Temple proposed here differs from biblical accounts and from descriptions of the Second Temple in Josephus\u2019s writing and the Mishnah. Most interesting is the extension of the temenos (the \u201ctemple city,\u201d or the City of the Sanctuary) by the addition of a third courtyard, so large that it would have encompassed most of what was then Jerusalem. The courtyards and their gates reflected the Israelite encampment in the wilderness, and the entire temple plan was intended to recreate the experience of the desert period in which sanctity was understood to radiate to all Israel from the epicenter of the sanctuary.
\nThe text\u2019s sacrificial festival calendar includes a number of festivals not part of the biblical or Rabbinic cycle. A second new year festival is celebrated on the first of Nisan, in the spring, followed by an annual celebration of the eight days of priestly ordination. Besides the Omer festival for the barley harvest (the second day of Passover) and the celebration of the firstfruits of wheat, the scroll adds two more firstfruits festivals, each at 50-day intervals, for oil and for wine. The wood offering is an annual festival in the summer. Extensive laws deal with the sacrificial procedure and ritual purity and impurity. These festivals suggest a general tendency to provide additional ways to protect the sanctuary from impurity.
\nEven in its present form, it is not difficult to discern that the Temple Scroll has been redacted from a number of sources by an author\/redactor who is himself the creator of the Deuteronomic paraphrase at the end of the scroll (11QT 51:11\u201356:21; 60:1\u201366:17). His sources most certainly included the sacrificial festival calendar (13:9\u201329:1) and the Law of the King and army (56:12\u201359:21). It has been suggested as well that the description of the temple precincts and furnishings (2:1\u201347:18) and the laws of purity (48:1\u201351:10) also constituted separate sources.
\nIn view of the parallels between the Temple Scroll and Some Precepts of the Torah (4QMMT) on the one hand and descriptions of the Sadducees in tannaitic literature on the other, it is most likely that the sources we are discussing here stem from the Sadducean heritage of the sect\u2019s founders. In these sources, therefore, we may begin to discover the nature of the Sadducean approach to biblical exegesis.
\nIn his initial study of the Temple Scroll, Yadin assumed that it was part of the Qumran sectarian corpus and that it was written by the Essenes. Other scholars have pointed to the absence in these texts of the polemical language, distinctive terminology, and other linguistic features characteristic of Qumran. Further, this text has a different view of the origins, authority, and derivation of Jewish law. Some recent scholarship has seen the Temple Scroll as emerging from a related group that was either contemporary with or earlier than the Qumran sect.
\nYet this view certainly must be modified in light of the even closer link between the Temple Scroll and Some Precepts of the Torah. This \u201cHalakhic Letter,\u201d which most likely dates to the origin of the Qumran community, describes a series of some 20 laws about which the authors disagreed with the established authorities of the Jerusalem priesthood and as a result left Jerusalem and its Temple. In general, Some Precepts of the Torah takes positions equivalent to those of the Sadducees in Rabbinic literature and ascribes to the Jerusalem priests views identified as Pharisaic in that literature, and in many cases its rulings agree with those of the Temple Scroll. This new evidence suggests that the sources of the Temple Scroll may be forerunners of the Qumran sect who shared Sadducean rulings on many matters.
\nThis scroll is the longest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and for this reason alone it vastly enriches the textual heritage of Second Temple Judaism. Further, it demonstrates that the scriptural exegesis concerning the origins of Jewish law, the activity that the later Rabbis called midrash, was already a central part of the Judaism of some groups in the Hasmonean period. This exegesis underlays highly developed legal teachings serving as evidence that among some groups of Second Temple Jews strict adherence to a living and developing tradition of Jewish law was the norm. Further, some of these Jews objected strenuously to the Hasmoneans\u2019 conduct in the religious, political, and military spheres. These opponents of the Jerusalem priests who were at the forefront of the movement represented by the Qumran sect brought with them to Qumran, along with other texts, the sources of the Temple Scroll.
\nSince these sources likely reflected Sadducean views and exegesis, the Temple Scroll should be able to increase substantially our knowledge of this hitherto elusive group that played so important a role in Second Temple Judaism. Further, it may allow us to reconstruct as well a variety of Pharisaic teachings from that time, thereby enriching many aspects of our knowledge of Second Temple Judaism.<\/p>\n
GUIDE TO READING<\/p>\n
For the most part, the translation of the Temple Scroll below is based on the manuscript 11QT. This manuscript represents a virtually continuous text, with lost text at the beginning and at the end and most columns only partially preserved. The largest amount of deterioration comes at the beginning of the scroll, because the outside was exposed to air; and the top lines of virtually all of the columns are missing, due to the way in which the scroll was placed in the cave. For this reason, much of the scroll has been restored with the help of either parallel manuscripts or parallels from the biblical text. In our translation, all such restorations are indicated with square brackets.
\nSome columns of the scroll have been restored with the help of additional manuscripts preserved in fragmentary condition or with the help of related texts. In these cases, after the column number in our main manuscript our translation indicates the use of other texts. A good example, because of its complexity, is column 23. At the beginning of the column I have inserted into the translation the following: Column 23 (+ 11QTb col. 6 and 4Q365 22, italics indicate overlap of 11QTb and 4Q365). This indicates that the text is drawn from column 23 of the manuscript designated as 11QT (cave 11, Qumran, Temple Scroll, manuscript \u201ca\u201d). Text that has been taken from 11QTb (manuscript \u201cb\u201d) column 6 (according to the length of that manuscript) is signified with a single underline. Material taken from 4Q365 (cave 4, Qumran, manuscript number 356) frag. 22 is indicated with a double underline (the double underline therefore appears under the manuscript number 4Q365 22). Here there was a need to indicate the overlap of manuscript \u201cb\u201d with the cave 4 manuscript, 4Q365. In the cases where 11QTb overlaps with 4Q365, italics are used to distinguish that section of the text. When readers encounter text within square brackets it means that an alternative manuscript supports the restoration and renders it virtually definite. Angle brackets indicate a correction by the original scribe who wrote omitted letters above the line.
\nWhile this explanation may seem complex, it is an opportunity to expose the reader to the difficulty that scholars face in creating composite, often restored, texts from the fragmentary manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In Dead Sea Scrolls research, reconstruction and restoration is an integral part of the interpretation of the text. We always need to remember that whatever is within square brackets and is not based on alternative manuscript readings must be regarded as tentative, no matter how compelling the restored text may appear.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Brooke, G. J., ed. Temple Scroll Studies. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989.
\nCharlesworth, J. H., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 7, Temple Scroll and Related Documents, edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, with A. D. Gross and M. C. Rand, et al. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011.
\nSchiffman, Lawrence H. The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple Scroll, edited by Florentino Garc\u00eda Mart\u00ednez. STDJ 75. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
\nSwanson, D. D. The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT. STDJ 14. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
\nWacholder, B. Z. The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness. Cincinnati OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983.
\nWhite Crawford, S. A. The Temple Scroll and Related Texts. CQS 2. Sheffield: Continuum, 2000.
\nWise, M.O. A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. SAOC 49. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990.
\nYadin, Y. The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect. New York: Random House, 1985.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1983.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
2:1\u20135. [for that which I] am do[ing This column, probably the second in the scroll, begins with the covenant between God and Israel found in Exod. 34:10\u201316. The line ends with a space, signifying the beginning of a new section. The scroll may wish to emphasize that Israel\u2019s tenure on the land is conditional on its avoidance of Hellenism, a matter that our text may intend as a polemic against the Hellenizing tendencies already observable under John Hyrcanus (134\u2013104 BCE) and Alexander Janneus (104\u201376 BCE). The scroll affirms the position that only monotheistic worship of the God of Israel is permissible.
\n3. Girgash]ites Added to the original list in Exod. 34:11.
\n6\u201311. [Indeed], you must tear down Based on Deut. 7:26. The author\/redactor harmonizes the similar sections of Exodus and Deuteronomy, a common editorial technique of the scroll.
\n8. burn with fire.] Added from Deut. 7:25, as in the Septuagint (LXX).
\n3:1. [\u2026] which is in [\u2026] This column may begin with some adaptation of Exod. 25:8, \u201cAnd you shall make Me a sanctuary so that I can dwell in their midst,\u201d which would have served as a general command to build the Temple.
\n2. blue and purple [and crimson yarns, \u2026] Fragment delineating the materials for building the Temple. Cf. Exod. 25:3\u20134.
\n3. [\u2026 al]l your enemies all [around \u2026] The full text must have presented God commanding Israel that when Israel is at rest from its enemies all around, it should build a house upon which God may place His name. This is based on biblical analogs in which Solomon is expected to build the Temple after the enemies of Israel are defeated (2 Sam. 7:1\u20135). This notion originates in Deut. 12:10\u201311. Our author does not intend to simply tie his Temple to that of Solomon. In fact, Solomon\u2019s Temple, according to our author, was constructed incorrectly. The Temple he writes of is, therefore, the fulfillment of what God commanded in Deuteronomy. The author masterfully combines the voice of the biblical period with the desire to properly rebuild the Temple during the Hasmonean period.
\n9. [\u2026 the] cover (kapporet) which is on it of pure gold [\u2026] This line may include a description of the construction of the kapporet.
\n10. [\u2026 the altar] of the fragrant incense Cf. Lev. 4:7; 11QT 8:11. The beginning of this line probably contained the command to construct the incense altar.
\nand the tabl[e shall be made of gold] For the showbread. Cf. 1 Kings 7:48.
\n11. shall not leave the Temple \u201cTemple\u201d here refers either to the Temple precincts or to the Temple building.
\n11\u201312. [its] dish[es \u2026 its bowls Sequence found in Exod. 25:29.
\n13. with which [to b]ring the fire inside (the Temple) The tannaim, in M. Yoma 4:4 and M. Tam. 5:5, understood these bowls to be of silver, not gold.
\n4:01\u201304. [of Israel every day \u2026 [blank] (?) Restoration based on Wacholder.
\n1\u20135. the wall seven cubits, protruding east \u2026 the sixth, a terrace The subject of these lines is the stepped or storied structures that surrounded the actual Temple. Although these structures were part of the same building complex as the Temple, they were entered from the outside and were not truly considered part of the Temple itself. These structures are mentioned in the description of the Solomonic Temple (1 Kings 6:5\u20136) and perhaps Ezekiel\u2019s ideal temple (Ezek. 41:5\u20139). Josephus also describes this structure, mentioning that 30 small chambers with entrances one to another surrounded the Solomonic Temple. The mishnaic depiction of the Second Temple in M. Mid. 4:3\u20134 also describes these chambers, numbering them 38. Both Josephus and the Mishnah represent an exegesis of 1 Kings 6:8. The restored term \u201cprotruding\u201d designates this storied structure. The term \u201cterrace\u201d designates the pavement upon which each story is constructed. This scroll\u2019s description differs from the biblical one in expecting that there will be six levels or chambers rather than three.
\n6\u20138. and you shall build] [the Temple \u2026 [\u2026 cu]bits Restoration based on Yadin. This passage refers to the actual structure of the sanctuary. If the text has been reconstructed properly, the author based the dimensions of the sanctuary on 1 Kings 6:2. The length of 60 cubits in this verse includes the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. The height given is only for the section of the building\u2014the inner 40 cubits\u2014that is not included in the portico. The term \u201csanctuary\u201d denotes the main part of the Temple, the \u201cGreat Hall\u201d in Kings. \u201cSanctuary\u201d is the preferred term of the tannaim (e.g., M. Mid. 4:5). Its usage here should be seen as an example of this scroll\u2019s tendency, in certain instances, to use terms known from Rabbinic sources, rather than those that are usual in the Bible. The basic floor plan in the Temple Scroll is the same as that in Solomon\u2019s Temple, Ezekiel\u2019s plan, the mishnaic plan, and the Herodian Temple. This shows that the restoration above is correct, despite its being so extensive.
\n8\u201312. And you shall build \u2026 twenty-one cubits [\u2026] Cf. 1 Kings 6:3. The portico does not appear in the Tabernacle text and is an innovation of the Solomonic Temple. These measurements differ in Ezekiel\u2019s plan (Ezek. 40:49). The Mishnah (M. Mid. 4:7) also differs in greatly enlarging the portico to make room for storing the sacrificial knives. Josephus\u2019s description of the Herodian Temple (J.W. 5, v, 4 [207]) also speaks about extended sides.
\n8. And you shall build Emending of \u201cyou shall come.\u201d This is probably a copyist\u2019s error. Cf. 1 Chron. 22:11 and 11QT 30:4.
\n10. and (its) height, sixty cubi[ts \u2026] The scroll understands the height of 60 cubits given in Ezra as referring to the entire structure, interpreting \u201chouse\u201d in the wider sense. The author, who shares with the Herodian Temple the notion that the temple building should be half the height of the portico, therefore specifies a full height of 30 cubits. Alternatively, it is possible that he expects that the upper chamber of the sanctuary will add another 30 cubits to the height, leading to a height of 60 cubits for the entire Temple. Furthermore, he may expect that chamber to also have side rooms, thus six levels of storied structures versus the three of other traditions.
\n11. [\u2026 t]welve cubits, and (its) h[eight \u2026] This describes the gate to the portico, that is, the outside gate into the temple structure. The Bible gives no width for this gate for the Solomonic Temple. Ezekiel measures this gate as three cubits on each side (Ezek. 40:48). M. Mid. 3:7 specifies a width of 20 cubits. Josephus, describing Herod\u2019s Temple (J.W. V, v, 4 [208]), indicates that the entrance was 25 cubits wide. Cf. 11QT 5:9 where the same measurement is given for the width of the four gates of the upper chamber.
\n13\u201314. [\u2026] twenty cubits square \u2026 [blank] This fragment preserves evidence for the plan of the Holy of Holies; it is the only possible structure that can be discussed in this context with the dimensions of 20 cubits square. This measurement is the same in every Temple-building tradition.
\n14. [over]laid [with gol]d Reading with Yadin. This line must have described the overlay of gold that covered the inside of the Holy of Holies. It is dependent on 1 Kings 6:20\u201321.
\n5:1\u201312\u20136:1\u20139. [\u2026] joints [\u2026] Columns 5 and 6 of the scroll overlap because the scroll had to be repaired by recopying the early columns. This passage describes the upper chamber of the Temple. This structure is also described in 11QT 31:6\u20137. Based on the discussion in M. Mid. 4:5, it covered both the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.
\n1. [\u2026] joints [\u2026] Cf. 1 Kings 22:23; 2 Chron. 18:33.
\n5. [twenty-eight cubit]s by twenty-eig[ht cubits] This dimension may be the outside measurement of the chamber over the Holy of Holies, assuming walls four cubits thick.
\n7. entire height [of the entablature and the windows] This is the entablature that is part of the ceiling structure.
\n8. and four gates [for the upper chamber These four gates are analogous to the four gates of the inner court. These, in turn, correspond to the three priestly families, Gershom, Kohath, and Merari, and to the Levites.
\n9. the gate The dimensions of these gates, 12 cubits wide and 21 high, were identical to the gate of the portico treated above in 4:11\u201312.
\n10. And the entire entablatu[re and its windows \u2026] Yadin\u2019s reading would yield \u201cand its doors.\u201d
\n11. [\u2026 the low]er May have originally read \u201c[the same size as the low]er [gate].\u201d This may refer to inner doors, as described in M. Mid. 4:1, which speaks of two sets of double doors leading into the sanctuary.
\n7:1\u20137. [\u2026] the board [\u2026] \u2026 any impurity This section may describe the boards that line the Holy of Holies. The author draws inspiration from Exod. 26:15\u201316. This totals the 80 or so boards mentioned in line 5.
\n10\u201313. And two cherubim \u2026 one [to the] [other] Text based on Exod. 25:18\u201320 with some influence from 1 Kings 6 and 8. The author evidently did not believe that the cherubim needed to be fashioned out of the same piece of beaten gold as the cover.
\n13. curtain of gold The requirement for the curtain to be gold is an innovation of the scroll, reflected otherwise only in later Rabbinic traditions.
\n8:5\u20137. [You will make a table of acacia wood Line 7 must have continued with some adaptation of Exod. 25:25. The apparatus for carrying the table is omitted; it served no useful purpose for a fixed temple building in Jerusalem.
\n9. And you shall place] upon the two rows The scroll requires that the frankincense be placed directly on the row of breads. The majority view of the tannaim agrees with the scroll. Abba Shaul, however, requires placement in vessels between the rows (M. Men. 11:5). Josephus (Ant. III, vi, 6 [142]) takes the same view.
\n9:1. make a lampstand This passage is an adaptation and expansion of Exod. 25:31\u201339. The command is to craft a menorah. It is also influenced by Exod. 37:17\u201324, where the command is fulfilled.
\n11\u201312. You will make the lampstand \u2026 lamps m]ust burn This is an adaptation of Exod. 37:29 and a harmonization with Exod. 37:22. The author sees the construction of the menorah and its accoutrements as one commandment. He inserts a modified version of v. 29 in which he indicates that the total weight is two talents for the menorah and its accoutrements. The MT is ambiguous on the question of whether one talent is the weight of the menorah alone or includes its accouterments. The same ambiguity exists in Exod. 37:23\u201324. LXX saw the single talent as the weight of just the accouterments. Ancient and medieval Rabbinic traditions record disputes about this ambiguity. The Temple Scroll takes a position on the debate and reads the verse as follows: \u201cIt shall be made of a talent of pure gold, so shall all these vessels.\u201d The author also included an adaptation of the end of v. 27, which indicates that all lamps must face forward. This diverges from the tannaitic view, which states that the three lamps on each side were to face the middle lamp. The law in the Temple Scroll may be a polemic against the view we know from the tannaitic sources, which must in fact have already been a Pharisaic tradition.
\n13. And the priests, the sons of [Aaron] Leviticus refers to Aaron\u2019s obligation to set out the lamps. Exodus mentions Aaron and his sons. Since the scroll deals with a post-Aaronide Temple, it changed \u201cAaron and his sons\u201d to \u201cthe priests, the sons of Aaron.\u201d
\n10:9. above the gate Probably refers to a screen or curtain over the gate of the vestibule or one of the gates to the inner court.
\n11:14. [I]nner Court Here begins the command to build the altar for burnt offerings and perhaps other similar structures.
\n13:9. and the wall Due to the scroll\u2019s poor state of preservation, another likely reading is \u201csacr[ifice(s).\u201d This begins the discussion of the daily sacrifice.
\n11. one lamb in the morning This text is a recapitulation of Exod. 29:38\u201341 and Num. 28:3\u20138.
\n12a. And its libation The scribe inserted this line here in accordance with Num. 28:7.
\n17. And on Sa[bbath] days 11QT 13:17\u201314:02 paraphrase of Num. 28:9\u201310.
\n14:04. beginnings of your months 11QT 14:2\u20138 details the new moon offering. The author altered much of the Pentateuch, rephrasing the commands of Num. 28:11\u20135 and Num. 15:1\u201313. The author uses Num. 15 to specify the amount of oil required for the offering. Num. 28 does not list a specific amount.
\n9. first of the [firs]t month 11QT 14:9\u201315:2 contains prescriptions regarding a sacrifice for the first day of the first month (Nisan 1). The section begins with an introduction based on Exod. 12:2, but adapts the ritual of the first day of the seventh month (Rosh Hashanah) found in Num. 29:1\u20136. It changes the order of sacrifice from burnt offering, meal offering, expiation offering, then libation for the expiation offering, to expiation offering, burnt offering, meal offering and then libations for the burnt offering. As in Jubilees, the expiation offering was offered in its entirety first. Rabbinic law, however, allowed offering the blood of the expiation offering after the limbs of the burnt offering. These special rites were in addition to the regular new moon sacrifices.
\n14. half a hin of oil, and wine for a libation, h[alf a hin Num. 29 does not mention amounts of oil and wine; the author adopts them from Num. 15.
\n15:3. [And for the (priestly) ordination, 11QT 15:3\u201317:4 describes an annual ceremony for the investiture of the priests, patterned on the biblical milluim ceremony. This ritual is an annual observance, occurring in the first week of the first month, that formalizes the reappointment of all the priests for the coming year and concludes with a special eight-day celebration. This section represents a harmonization of Exod. 29, where the ordination is commanded, and Lev. 8, where it is executed.
\none ram for each and every day] The biblical discussion of the ordination ceremony lists an offering of one bull and two rams. In our scroll, the bull is understood as the offering to ordain the High Priest (and is expanded to two bulls) and the two rams as ordaining the ordinary priests.
\n5. division[s of the priests The text mentions seven groups of priests, each with its own ram and basket. Although not explicitly stated, each group is ordained on a specific day. No such notion appears in the biblical commandment for this rite.
\n7\u20138. and the fat that is on] the loins Whereas the Bible mentions only fat, our scroll specifies exactly which fat. References to fat on the loins appear in Lev. 3:4, 10, and 15. Additionally the qualification of the fat tail as \u201cnear its spine\u201d appears in both Lev. 3:9 and our scroll. The author uses this list to disambiguate the sacrificial lists of Exod. 29 and Lev. 8.
\n12. It is a burnt offering The ordination ceremony includes two parts: waving and then burning the offerings. In Exod. 29:27, the right thigh of the offering is given to the priest; Lev. 8:25\u201327 understands the thigh as being offered on the altar. Our scroll follows Leviticus. To avoid confusion, our author stresses \u201cit is a burnt offering,\u201d a phrase borrowed from the burning of the first ram (Exod. 29:18; Lev. 8:21).
\n15. But if a (new) High Priest This section is a pastiche of biblical material. The author combines Lev. 21:10 (the High Priest\u2019s ordination), 16:32 (Day of Atonement ritual), and Deut. 17:12 (the judicial role of the priesthood). The author expected these rituals to be practiced in the immediate pre-eschatological future.
\n17. [one fo]r the entire peo[ple] This passage clearly demonstrates influence from the biblical Day of Atonement ritual. There, the High Priest offers sacrifices designated for expiation of impurities brought into the holy precincts on behalf of the priest and the people of the congregation. He sacrifices so that they will be granted atonement for their trespasses of the sanctuary\u2019s sanctity. Our scroll must intend that the offerings of ordination made by the new High Priest will attain expiation for the priests and the people for similar transgressions.
\n18. the elders of the priest[s] In our passage, the priestly elders perform two roles that they do not perform in the Bible: first, they lay their hands on the head of the sacrificial animal first, and then they perform the blood ritual. In the biblical description, Aaron and his sons place their hands on the animal, and Moses performs the ritual. The replacement of Moses and the addition of the elders demonstrate that the scroll seeks to legislate this practice for the post-Mosaic period. Further evidence appears in 11QT 16:3, where the elders continue to perform the duties that the biblical text assigns to Moses.
\n16.6. [Then] he (the High Priest) [shall put it] on the al[t]ar and burn In the biblical accounts (Lev. 8:16; Exod. 29:13), Moses performs this rite. According to the scroll, placing the blood of the ram of ordination on the hands and feet of the High Priest represents his transition to office. He now replaces Moses and can officiate.
\n11. outsi[de the City of the Sanctuary] The Bible only mentions that expiation offerings were to be burned outside the camp. The author extends this legislation to the ordination sacrifice; he understands the camp to refer to the outermost sections of the desert camp, his equivalent to the outer courtyard of the Temple. Accordingly, he expected the burning to take place in a special location outside the entire temenos (Temple precints). Such a location is mentioned in T. Yoma 3:16\u201317.
\n14. Then he shall take the second bull This second bull has no real scriptural basis. As such, its offering procedure is identical to that of the first bull. The requirement that a second bull be sacrificed appears to derive from Ezek. 45:18\u201319, which ordains that a bull be sacrificed each year on the first day of the first month to purge the Temple of impurity. The ordination of the new High Priest seems to have presented, in the view of the author, a special opportunity to gain forgiveness for the people. In this way, the bull functioned as an expiation offering for the people.
\n17:6. on the fo]urteenth This section was restored with Lev. 23:5; Deut. 16:1; and Num. 9:2.
\n7. before the meal offering The Temple Scroll requires that the paschal offering be sacrificed before the evening sacrifice. This is in opposition to tannaitic practice, which requires that the minhah be offered before the paschal lamb (M. Pes. 5:1).
\n8. from twenty years old \u2026 eat it As does Jubilees, the Temple Scroll requires that the lamb be eaten by those above 20. Yadin suggests that this ruling is based on the interpretation of Exod. 30:14 and Num. 1:2\u20133, as well as Exod. 12:6.
\nat night Jubilees requires the offering to be eaten by 10:00 p.m., and the tannaim require it be eaten before midnight, \u201cin order to separate one from the possibility of transgression\u201d (M. Ber. 1:1).
\n18:3. must not eat until] that [very] day The Temple Scroll festival calendar includes a series of four festivals of firstfruits. 11QT 18:1\u201310 discusses the first of these festivals, that of barley. The second festival\u2019s focus is wheat (11QT 18:10\u201319:9); the third, wine (11QT 19:11\u201321:10); and the fourth, oil (11QT 21:12\u201323:02). The scroll draws on the rituals of the bikkurim festival described in Num. 28:26\u201330.
\n10. And you shall count This text follows Lev. 23:15\u201317 as it begins to describe what the Rabbis termed \u201ccounting the Omer,\u201d the 50 days from the bringing of the first sheaf of barley until the holiday of the firstfruits of wheat.
\n12. until the morrow after the seventh week Literally, the Sabbath. This position follows that attributed to the Sadducees and Boethusians in Rabbinic literature (B. Men. 65a\u2013b).
\n14. leavened bread of new flour New flour is grain from the present season\u2019s crop, ripened and harvested just before the festival.
\n14\u201315. wheat bread, tw[elve] [loaves.] Whereas Lev. 23:17 requires only two of these breads, here 12 loaves are specified, one for the head of each tribe. These correspond to the 12 animals to be offered instead of the two loaves required by Leviticus, which corresponds with the two lambs, which Leviticus required for shelamim.
\n19:2. the burnt offer [ing of the firstfruits These are the offerings of Lev. 23:18, which the scroll, like Josephus (Ant. 3 x, 6 [253]) and the tannaim (M. Men. 4:3), sees as separate from the additional sacrifices (musafim) of Num. 28:26\u201331.
\n7. f]reshly ripened ears Based on Lev. 2:14. The tannaim (baraita in B. Men. 61b; Sifra Vayikra parashah 13:4) see this as referring to the firstfruits of barley, the sheaf of the Omer, whereas the scroll takes it to refer to the firstfruits of the wheat harvest.
\n16. tw]elve rams This diverges from the lambs (young male sheep) mentioned in the Torah.
\n20:06. quarter of the day 9:00 a.m.
\n2. fo]urteen [one-year-old lambs While the term shelamim is not used to describe these sacrifices, the manner in which they are treated and the portions offered and eaten indicate that they are indeed shelamim offerings. The number 14 corresponds to one animal for the priests, one for the Levites, and one for each of the 12 tribes.
\n4\u20139. their fat they shall burn \u2026 [before the LORD] This passage is based on Lev. 3:8\u201311, the only passage dealing with shelamim to mention the disposition of the fat tail. The author changes the order so that the entire fat tail is offered, which accords with the opinion of some tannaim (Sifra Nedavah Perek 19:2\u20133).
\n10. they must take off from it a handful Cf. Lev. 17:10 and the entirety of chapter 2. See also M. Men. 5:3.
\n13. sun shall [no]t s[et on it] It must be finished before sunset. This law is in disagreement with M. Men. 1:2\u20134 and M. Zev. 6:1, which allow the consumption of these offerings until midnight.
\n14\u201321:5. Then they shall present to the LORD a gift offering \u2026 their descendants This section deals with the wine festival and is based on Lev. 7:30\u201334, which describes the shelamim offering, and Deut. 18:3, which the scroll takes to refer to shelamim offerings and to the appropriation of some parts of them to the Levites, although the Torah had not apportioned any gifts to the Levites from the shelamim. Tannaitic exegesis understands Deut. 18:3 as \u201cnonsacred\u201d slaughter.
\n21:03. [and the stomachs Exod. 29:26 (cf. Lev. 8:29) and Lev. 7:33 specify the thigh and breast alone as the priestly portion of the sacrificial offerings. M. Hul. 10:1 requires that the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach of unconsecrated animals be given to the priests.
\n21:3. And they must eat the]m in the Outer Courtyard before the LORD The requirement that this offering be eaten in the outer court corresponds exactly to the tannaitic injunction that voluntary shelamim may be eaten throughout the entre city of Jerusalem. The obligatory shelamim of the Shavuot festival were to be eaten only within the inner court, and only by the priests (M. Zev. 5:5, 7). The requirement to eat this sacrifice in the outer court indicates that this was a festive shelamim. An obligatory one would have been eaten only in the inner court.
\n6. great [t]o [small] Alternatively, from oldest to youngest.
\n7. drink new wine The new wine referred to here is equivalent to the young wine of line 4 above.
\n8. they shall provide atonement for the] young wine This technical terminology means that through this ritual it becomes permissible to drink the new wine, just as bringing the barley offering makes the new grain permissible.
\nThe children of Israel shall rejoice In Second Temple times, festive shelamim sacrifices were offered as part of the celebration of the pilgrimage festivals\u201d and were consumed by participants. The Temple Scroll expected such offerings to be made on the firstfruit festivals.
\n12. day The biblical \u201cfrom the morrow of the Sabbath\u201d is omitted here.
\n14. offer new oil Oil from the present season\u2019s crops.
\n15. new beaten oil That is, extra virgin oil, namely the oils that come from the olives as the millstone goes around the first time.
\n22:3. [fourteen rams] and fourt[een la]mbs The offering of rams as shelamim here is somewhat surprising. According to Lev. 3, the appropriate animals are male and female cattle (Lev. 3:1), sheep (3:7), or goats (3:12), but no rams. When discussing the shelamim, Lev. 3:16 prohibits the forbidden fats of oxen, lambs, and sheep. Rams are not mentioned. The ordination ceremony in Lev. 9:4, however, does designate both rams and bulls as shelamim. The scroll may borrow this from the ordination ceremony, or assume that the Heb. keves means sheep of any age.
\n4. Then the sons of Levi will slaughter Assigning the responsibility for slaughtering the offerings to the Levites accords with Ezek. 44:11. Tannaitic sources indicate that nonpriests may slaughter the shelamim, although in Second Temple practice the priests slaughtered all the sacrifices except for the paschal lamb. Regardless, the requirement of the Temple Scroll that the Levites perform the slaughtering is unique in postbiblical literature. The levitical participation in the rite of slaughter is what earned them the portion of the shoulder that the scroll allots to them.
\n11. the shoulder Priestly emoluments initially did not include the portion from the shoulder bone and up, that is, the shoulder.
\n15. they shall eat and anoint from the new oil and from the olives That is, \u201cthey shall eat from foods made with the new oil and of the olives and shall anoint with the oil.\u201d
\n23:02. [throughout their generations Cf. 21:4\u201310. Those who observed these rituals certainly did not see oil as defiling, as claimed by some Essene groups and the Qumran sect.
\n03. contribute the wood This section begins the discussion of the wood festival. It is a complex six-day festival involving multiple offerings, with two tribes offering their sacrifices each day. Each tribe brought a male goat for an expiation offering, one bull, one ram, and one sheep. No mention is made of requirements for specific types of wood or any other regulation. Instead, we have a picture of a festival that contrasts with the tannaitic vision, where such wood offerings occur at various times throughout the year (M. Tan. 4:4\u20135). Yadin suggests that this festival was to occur between the 23rd and 31st day of the sixth month, for six days, skipping the Sabbaths.
\n04\u201305. on the first day: the tribes of] [Levi and Judah These sacrifices were patterned after those the tribal princes offered in Num. 7:12\u201389, where they are referred to as burnt offerings. The Levites did not appear in that list, but were introduced here, probably based on Neh. 10:35(34).
\n11\u201317. they must slaughter before him the he-goat first \u2026 a pleasant odor to the LORD This section describes the general principles for offering the male goat as an expiation offering: It is to be offered before the burnt offering; its blood is to be offered on the altar and then the forbidden fat on the same altar, together with its meal offering and libations.
\n12. blood up to the altar in a basin The scroll always requires completion of the blood rites of the expiation offering before continuing with the burnt offering.
\n14. of the ledge of the altar Cf. Ezek. 45:19.
\n24:1\u20139. the head [and the suet \u2026 before the LORD This section provides the rules regarding the sacrifice of the burnt offering. Basing itself on Lev. 1:6\u20139, 12\u201313, the text explains the manner of carving the burnt offering, placing it upon the altar, and sacrificing its meal offering and libations.
\n10. he shall offer the burnt offering of the tribe of Judah by itself This line makes clear that the limbs of the burnt offering of each tribe are kept separate from those of the other tribe whose sacrifice occurs on the same day.
\n13. Ephraim and Manasseh together The scroll sees Ephraim and Manasseh as one tribe, retaining the place of Levi in the tribal count. Elsewhere Levi is eclipsed when the two sons of Joseph are divided into two tribes, creating a total of 12.
\n25:2. And on the [seventh] m[onth on the first] The holiday on the first day of the seventh month is referred to by the biblical phrase zikhron teruah \u201ccommemorated with loud blasts.\u201d This passage is based on Lev. 23:23\u201325 and Num. 29:1\u20136. The author of the Temple Scroll makes clear that the daily morning offering would precede the offering of the new moon (cf. Num. 29:6).
\n7. besides th]e continual That is, in addition to.
\n8. during the third quarter of the day 3:00 p.m.
\n9. They shall rejoice on this day The author notes the commandment to rejoice. It is found neither in the biblical passage that the author took as his basis, nor in the characterization of this holy day in the Rabbinic tradition.
\n11. the Day of Atonement 11QT 25:10\u201327:10 spells out the ritual for the Day of Atonement. It draws from Lev. 23:26\u201332; Num. 29:7\u201311; and Lev. 16.
\nyou shall afflict yourself Like Jubilees the scroll does not refer to explicit afflictions. Nonetheless, texts from the sectarian corpus at Qumran and other contemporary materials make clear that the Day of Atonement was a day of fasting (cf. 1QpHab 1:4\u20138). It is interesting to note that the prohibition on labor is omitted, but this may be either an error on the part of the author, or, more likely, a result of our text\u2019s concern only with the day\u2019s sacrificial elements.
\n14. besides the expiation of atonement The author of our text clearly expected a total of three rams to be offered on the Day of Atonement: the one of the additional sacrifice of Numbers and the two of Lev. 16. One could have concluded, as did several Rabbinic traditions (cf. B. Yoma 70b), that the ram of Num. 29 was identical to that of the people in Lev. 16. Our scroll, however, understands there to be three rams, which is similar to the opinions Philo (Special Laws 1,188) and Josephus (Ant. 3,240). In essence, our author chose to follow the plain meaning of the biblical text and his conclusion as to the existence of three rams was in turn reflected in his literary reworking of the material.
\n16. two rams Both of these rams are mentioned in Lev. 16:3, 5, although curiously they do not appear in the remainder of the description of the Day of Atonement ritual in Lev. 16.
\n26:3. The [High Prie]st [must cast Cf. Lev. 16:8. The Bible\u2019s mention of Aaron has been replaced by the High Priest, likely adapted from Lev. 21:10. The scroll makes clear that this ritual applies to all generations and is not just a one-time command referring to the Jewish people in the desert. A similar impulse can be seen in the priestly ordination ceremony (11QT 15:3\u201317:14).
\n5\u20137. [Then] they shall slaughter \u2026 the people of the congregation The author combines Lev. 16:9 and 16:15 here, creating an exegesis of biblical material. The Bible tells us that the priest has to bring the blood to where it will be sprinkled, but does not explain how. Our text specifies that the priest is to collect the blood in a golden basin, from which it is to be offered. The scroll requires the exact same procedure as is mentioned in the Mishnah (M. Yoma 5:3).
\n6. golden basin This golden basin is not mentioned in the Bible. It is most likely reflective of the procedure in the author\u2019s own day, that he interpolated into his restatement of the biblical laws.
\n27:4. offering shall be accepted for the Children of Israel Here we are told that the Day of Atonement sacrifice is accepted on behalf of the children of Israel. The root r-tz-h has clearly been replaced by li-kapper, \u201cto atone for,\u201d of Lev. 16:34. The acceptance of the sacrifice simply refers to its being efficacious for \u201catonement.\u201d
\n10. fifteenth day of this month This passage discusses the festival of Sukkot. It lists the sacrifices for each day, following Num. 29:13\u201333. The formulation of this line was influenced by some Pentateuchal passages dealing with Passover (Lev. 23:6 and Num. 28:17). It is also interesting to note that the Temple Scroll\u2019s discussion of Sukkot lacks any mention of the four species.
\n28:05. choice flour mixed with oil Here, as elsewhere, the scroll changes the order of the verses to indicate the requirement that the meal offerings and libations accompany the goat being offered as an expiation offering.
\n29:010. [eighth day This passage discusses Shemini Atzeret. The biblical requirements of Num. 29:35\u201330:1 are followed exactly.
\n2\u20133. These [are the set times of the LORD \u2026 My name [to dwell] This small section, based on Num. 29:39, concludes the festival calendar. The author stresses that only if the sacrifices are conducted according to the particular ritual calendar of the text, which adds festivals apparently dependent on the solar calendar, will God cause his name to dwell in the Temple. It also stresses that the sacrifices may take place only in this Temple and nowhere else. The text clearly takes as synonymous the presence of God\u2019s name and his indwelling in the Temple. The name of God appears here almost as a hypostacization, like the Shekhinah, the Divine Presence, as understood by the Rabbis.
\n4\u20136. [They must offer \u2026 may be accepted These lines are based on Lev. 23:37\u201338. After this adaptation of the two Leviticus verses, an important theme in the scroll\u2019s view of sacrifice is introduced. By weaving in Exod. 28:38, the scroll states that the sacrifices are intended to bring God\u2019s favor upon Israel, and if they are properly offered according to the above ritual calendar and procedures, God will desire them.
\n6. bring to Me The scroll switches to the first person so that God speaks directly.
\n7\u201310. They shall be My nation \u2026 with Jacob at Bethel. The Temple envisaged in this passage is a pre-messianic Temple that was to function in the present age up to the creation of a new sanctuary at the end of days. It is an ideal Temple, built upon the principles of scriptural interpretation and the beliefs of the author (s).
\n7. And I will accept them From here the scroll begins recounting the results of this efficacious sacrifice, leading toward the bond between God and Israel, a notion patterned here on Ezek. 37:23. Based on this relationship, the indwelling of God in Israel\u2019s Temple takes place, as mentioned in the following lines (7\u20139). This crucial statement, influenced to some extent by Exod. 29:43\u201345, must be seen as the result of the intimate bond between God and Israel, which itself is a consequence of the correct offering of the sacrifices for the festivals, according to the scroll\u2019s ritual calendar.
\nI will be theirs forever Cf. Lev. 26:12; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 37:23.
\n10. the covenant that I established with Jacob at Bethel The basis for this notion that God promised Jacob at Bethel that he would establish a Temple for Israel at the end of days lies in the exegesis of Exod. 15:17, \u201cThe sanctuary, O LORD, which your hands have established.\u201d This passage is interpreted similarly in 4QFlor 1\u20132. For the author, Jacob\u2019s dream intimated a connection between heaven and earth, a Temple, but one to be constructed by God himself.
\n30:3. And [you] must make [a house] Here begins the command to build the staircase, the first structure of the inner court to be discussed. This staircase led to the upper chamber of the temple building.
\n6. aligned with its four corners The sides of the stairhouse (a building with a staircase in it) are to be parallel to those of the temple building itself.
\n8. from angle to angle That is, from inside corner to inside corner.
\n10. cubits on all its sides This shows that the width of the stairs was four cubits as well. This form of spiral staircase was excavated in the Hellenistic tower at Dor. A similar structure is described in the New Jerusalem texts.
\n31:10. building for the laver The commandment to build the laver (not a building, but an actual basin) is found in Exod. 30:17\u201321. Exod. 38:8 records its construction. Nowhere in the scroll do we find mention of the laver itself, as opposed to the building for it. It may, however, have been discussed in the lost section at the top of column 32. The notion of a special building for the laver is unique to the Temple Scroll.
\nin the southeast This must refer to the eastern end of the Temple\u2019s southern wall. The Exodus passage required that the laver be placed between the Tent of Meeting and the altar. 1 Kings 7:39 notes that the tank was placed \u201con the right side of the House, at the southeast [corner].\u201d M. Mid. 3:6 positions the laver in front of the Temple building, slightly to the south, opposite the ramp that led up to the altar for burnt offerings. This mishnaic text bridges the gap between Exodus and Kings; like Exodus, it places the laver between the Temple and the altar, and like Kings, to the south. The Temple Scroll follows Kings and rejects Exodus. To also follow Exodus, it would have had to place the laver farther east.
\n10\u201312. twenty-one \u2026 [t]wenty The dimensions of the House of the Laver were intended to accommodate a laver of the size mentioned in the Solomonic description, that is, 10 cubits across, as well as ample room for the necessary purification rituals and for access to the storage lockers built into the walls.
\n13. the gates is four cubits There was no need for a gate from the south, since no sacrificial activity took place to the south of the House of the Laver. The New Jerusalem texts speak of houses 21 cubits long, with the same gate dimensions. The source of this parallel is via the influence of Hellenistic architecture rather than any direct relationship between the New Jerusalem texts and the Temple Scroll.
\n32:1. three cubits This section most probably discussed the laver that most likely looked similar to the Solomonic one (1 Kings 7:23\u201326). Some Rabbinic sources may also preserve details about this laver (M. Yoma 3:10; B. Yoma 37a).
\n5\u20138. for the altar \u2026 burnt offer[ing \u2026] This fragmentary passage addresses the purpose of the laver. Based on the way it is used in other sources, we can understand this section as commanding the priests to lave their hands and feet before the various sacrifices, including guilt offerings, burnt offerings, and incense.
\n9. cubbies M. Tam. 5:3 mentions similar structures. These were used, according to our scroll, for storing the various priestly garments, which were sorted into four types, each with its own compartment. According to T. Suk. 4:27, each priestly course had its own set of lockers. Similar compartments were used in the bathhouses of Palestine during this period, and also in ritual baths. From this passage, it is also clear that washing took place after sacrifices as well.
\n12. And you must construct a conduit Such a conduit is not discussed in any other source. Its inclusion here may have been influenced by Ezek. 47:1, but that passage does not reference the laver. A similar sewage system existed, according to the Mishnah, to dispose of water and blood from the altar in the Second Temple (M. Mid. 3:2). These liquids ran into Nahal Qidron, where they were absorbed into the earth. According the scroll, even diluted blood is considered sanctified and must not be used. Hence it is not enough for this water to flow into a brook; it must be contained in dry wells in the earth.
\n33:1\u20137. coming \u2026 holy garments that [they serve in] This passage must have outlined the way in which the priests were to enter and exit the Temple and the rules for washing hands and feet and for depositing and changing garments. Our regulation is based on Ezek. 42:14, which required the priests to shed their holy vestments after offering the sacrifices, before leaving to the outer court. The specific requirement for putting on special clothing when entering and removing them when leaving is also discussed in Ezek. 44:17\u201319, where the garments are to be left in \u201cthe holy chambers,\u201d which our author took to be the House of the Laver.
\n8. You must construct a building to the east This house was 22 cubits from the altar.
\n11. blocked windows facing inward The text is describing niches set into the wall facing inward.
\n15. the legs onto the altar Cf. Exod. 27:3; 38:3; Num. 4:14.
\nAnd when they finish burning This section may originally have concerned the cleaning of the utensils and their storage in the containers.
\n34:3. between the pillars Perhaps the reference here is to the tables on which the sacrifices were flayed (cf. M. Mid. 3:5).
\n6. with the rings A system of chains and rings was used to hold the animals in position for slaughtering. Apparently the chains activated a pulley system (the wheels) for opening and closing the rings that held the animals\u2019 heads. Alternatively, the wheels alone may have opened and closed the rings, with the chains being used to lift the animals after slaughter.
\n8. and throw it on the base Cf. Lev. 1:5\u201313 for this entire section. Like Lev. 1, our passage is describing the sacrifice of burnt offerings.
\n10. with salt Cf. Lev. 2:13; Ezek. 43:24.
\n35:2\u20133. Any person \u2026 the h]oly This section paraphrases Lev. 22:3 and 21:16\u201317. Only proper priests are to be found in the areas surrounding the Temple, altar, laver, and stoa. According to the Rabbis, the Israelites are permitted to enter the outermost area of the Temple precincts for specific cultic acts. To them, the boundary of this area is the Gate of Nicanor.
\n4\u20135. he himself is not a priest The prohibition against one who is not a priest is based on Num. 17:5. The Rabbis note that one who performs the sacrificial service without the priestly garments is liable to death at the hands of heaven (T. San. 14:16; T. Zev. 12:17; T. Ker. 1:5). His sacrifice is considered invalid (M. Ker. 2:1).
\n6. not dressed in [the holy] gar[ments Cf. 11QT 33:1\u20137.
\n9. holiest of the holy (areas) Usually translated as \u201cHoly of Holies.\u201d Cf. Exod. 29:37; 30:29; Ezek. 43:12. The scroll considers all the areas involved with the offering of sacrifices to be of the highest level of holiness.
\n10. (free) standing columns These columns were used to tether the animals in such a way as to keep them separated. The purpose of this law must be that these offerings had differing rules regarding the eating of parts by the priest.
\n14. the priest not err So that he would not offer the wrong sacrifice.
\n36. Inner Court The inner court was to measure 280 cubits square, with an outside dimension of 294 cubits.
\n4. corner] \u201cAngle\u201d designates the inside of the intersection of the two lines, whereas \u201ccorner\u201d refers to the outside.
\n7. And (as to) the ga[t]es The gates are located on each of its four sides. We can surmise that these gates represented the four groups of the tribe of Levi: the Aaronide priests on the east, the Levites of Kohath on the south, Gershon on the west, and Merari on the south. This arrangement corresponds to that of the desert camp (Num. 3:14\u201339). In fact, the entire Temple plan was intended to re-create the experience of the desert period, when sanctity radiated to all Israel from the sanctuary at its epicenter.
\n10. roofed over with an entablature Above the gate.
\n14. extend inward into the court The reference is to the protrusion of the gate structure inward from the wall.
\n38:01. in the north-east angle and The top of the column dealt with the function of the stoves in the four corners of the inner court.
\n4. for grain, young wine, and o[il] This may refer to the priests\u2019 eating at the Firsfruits Festivals (cf. 21:7).
\n6. to the left That is, the north.
\n7. And [to the right That is, the south.
\n8. [upon which is brought] frankincense See 11QT 8:11\u201312.
\n12. a second [c]ourt around the Inner Court The middle court surrounds the inner court, 100 cubits farther out, covering an area of 480 cubits square, with three gates on each side.
\n39:5. and the stranger who was born in your mi]dst, the four[th] generation Deut. 23:8\u20139 influenced this passage. The verse commands the Israelites not to withhold from the Edomite and Egyptian the right of entry into the congregation of the LORD. It notes that only after the third generation of children (equivalent to four generations if the original convert is counted) could members of these nations who had entered the Jewish people intermarry with full-fledged born Israelites. From this passage the Temple Scroll derived the law that those nations allowed to convert to Judaism (we do not know if there were formal procedures at this time) could only lose the status of \u201cstranger\u201d with the fourth generation. Other texts at Qumran are divided as to whether converts constitute a separate class. Nonetheless, it can be inferred that our scroll excludes non-Jews from the entire temenos, or City of the Sanctuary. The Rabbis prohibit non-Jews from entering wthin the barrier surrounding the court of the women (M. Kelim 1:8). Some tannaim also view converts as a separate class (T. Kid. 5:1).
\n7. Israel [\u2026] This lacuna may refer to the convert. Yadin notes that it may refer to the bringing of the firstfruits; cf. Deut. 26:10.
\nA woman may not enter there, nor a boy until the day 11QT 40:6 indicates that women were to be allowed only into the outer court, and presumably boys under 20 were allowed there as well. Yadin notes similar requirements in War Scroll for being in the military camp (1QM 8:3\u20134). Only after reaching the age of 20 and making the requisite half-shekel contribution could a boy be considered an adult and be allowed in the middle court. Twenty seems to be the age of the religious majority in Second Temple times. Tannaitic sources indicate that women were excluded from the court of the Israelites and were to remain in the Court of Women, which was also accessible to men (T. Suk. 4:1). There is indication in talmudic sources that male children were to be excluded from the court of the Israelites. In fact, they were expected to help their parents ascend to the Temple Mount from Jerusalem (M. Hag. 1:1). Josephus (J.W. 5, v, 6 [227]) notes that menstruating women were excluded only from the Temple.
\n11. names of the gates of this Court Each gate is named after a tribe. This gate system is repeated for the outer court (40:13\u201341:11).
\n40:1\u20134. to put on the ves[tments \u2026] \u2026 [cour]t to These lines deal with the priests\u2019 leaving the inner court and entering the middle court while wearing the sacred vestments. Cf. Lev. 6:4; Ezek. 42:14; 44:19.
\n5. third Court The outer court is a concentric enclosure surrounding the middle court, with sides measuring some 1,600 cubits. The actual dimension is 1,590 cubits, or, including the outward extension of the gates from the outer wall, 1,604 cubits.
\n6. for their daughters, and for the proselytes This passage permits proselytes and women into the outer court. As noted above, tannaitic sources require that women remain in the Court of the Women. This practice was confirmed by Josephus (J.W. 2.5.2 [198\u201399]). Since the outer court of the Temple Scroll and the women\u2019s court of the tannaim in the the Herodian Temple are both the outer courts of the respective temple plans, we may also observe that the tannaim and the scroll agreed, as did Second Temple practice, that women were admitted to the outermost court of the Temple.
\n11. (There must be) three gates in it in the east The distribution of the outer court\u2019s gates corresponds exactly with that of the middle court. Note that Joseph is listed as one tribe, instead of being split into Manasseh and Ephraim. This allows Levi to be included in the count of the 12 tribes. Each section of the wall is 360 cubits and each gate is 50. This yields a total of four sections of wall and three gates, equaling 1,590 cubits. Fourteen cubits may be added, since the gates on each side protrude seven cubits.
\n13. From the corner The author begins in the northeast and proceeds clockwise.
\n41:01. southern corner That is, the southeast corner.
\n1. we]st[ern corner] That is, the southwest corner.
\n6. [northern corner] That is, the northeast corner.
\n11. eastern corner That is, the northeast corner from which the description begins.
\n17\u201342:6. And between one gate and another \u2026 eight[een \u2026] Three distinct structures are envisaged here. A person approaching the outer wall first entered the stoas, then proceeded farther into the \u201crooms,\u201d and then entered the inner \u201cchambers.\u201d The total height of these structures was 50 cubits.
\n03. And the width That is, the thickness.
\n9. their rooms and their stoas The stoas were the colonnaded porticoes facing the court. After proceeding through the stoa, one came to the rooms, which were anterooms to the chambers and stood against the back of the outside wall.
\n13. constructed upon them every single year for the Festival of Sukkot The frames are to be permanent, but the new roofs of branches must be put up each year.
\n14. for the princes Tribal leaders.
\n16. and sit there until the sac
\n43:12. for it is holy Cf. Exod. 29:34. The scroll treats the leftover tithe as it does the remains of sacrifices. See Lev. 19:6.
\n12\u201313. distance from the Temple of three days\u2019 journey This three days\u2019 journey may be based on the three days\u2019 journey of Exod. 3:18 or Exod. 8:23\u201324, where \u201cfar\u201d is identified as a three-day journey. This limit explains the phraseology in Deut. 14:24. This is also the limit used by the scroll for nonsacral slaughter.
\n13\u201314. But if they cannot carry it The obligation to offer the second tithe is joined to the celebration of the firstfruits festival. Hence, in distinction to the Rabbinic system, our scroll views the second tithe as being annual. This view was also taken by Jub. 32:10\u201311 and Ant. 4:242.
\n16. their sorrow This is the opposite of the commandment to rejoice, which applies on festival days.
\n17. Therefore, it shall be eaten on holy days; and it may not be eaten on workdays The repetition of this prescription probably results from its disagreement with what is later codified in Rabbinic law, which permits eating the second tithe at any time. The scroll seeks to polemicize against this view.
\n44:3. You must apportion [each chamber from the gate of] Here we learn of the relationship of the chambers to the various gates. We see a total of 16 sets of chambers and rooms, of three stories with the sukkot on top, apportioned to the 11 sons of Jacob other than Levi, and with five sections\u2014two for Aaron and one for each levitical clan. In the ritual sense, Aaron holds the birthright among the sons of Jacob, hence he gets a double portion. The distribution pattern of the chambers corresponds to the distribution of the gates. This design attempts to embody the desert camp of Israel within the temenos.
\n5. you shall apportion to the sons of Aaron, your brother Although generally excising Moses from this text, the author seems to have slipped here, allowing this one indirect reference to Moses.
\n45:5. toward the eighth day As the seventh day (the Sabbath) was drawing to a close the priestly courses changed. The outgoing course concluded its service on the Sabbath, and the incoming one assumed its role on Sunday, beginning with the morning continual burnt offering. This contrasts with the tannaitic understanding that the new course began on the Sabbath and the previous course left after the Sabbath, so that extra priests were available for the holy day.
\n5\u20136. And they (must) purify the chambers Cf. Neh. 13:9. The regular purification of the chambers may point to a disagreement between the Temple Scroll and the position attributed to the Sadducees, who saw no reason to purify the Temple after the festivals (T. \u1e24ag. 3:35).
\n7. nocturnal emission, he may not enter Cf. CD 12:1\u20132 (= 4Q271 5 i 17\u201318), which indicates that one is prohibited from having sexual relations in the City of the Sanctuary. This passage is based on Deut. 23:11. While our scroll says \u201cnocturnal emission,\u201d it refers to any seminal emission.
\n8. until he [com]pletes three days The Temple Scroll requires that those undergoing purification rituals be considered totally impure on the last day of their impurity, until sundown, even after immersing (cf. 11QT 49:19\u201321 and 51:5\u20134). This view accords with the view of the Sadducees, who denied the Pharisaic category of \u1e6devul yom. The Pharisees considered such a person pure for the purposes of allowing him to touch pure food outside the sanctuary.
\n9. on the first day; and on the th[ir]d day The author added the extra stringency of three days based on the three-day preparatory period for the revelation at Sinai. Deut. 23:12 and Lev. 15:18 require only one day.
\nThen (when) Use of \u201cthen\u201d (a\u1e25ar) shows that the author of the scroll is emphasizing his opposition to the concept of \u1e6devul yom.
\n11. sexual relations with his wife This passage is based on Lev. 15:18. The wording of the first part of the sentence is taken from Lev. 19:20.
\n12. No blind man This passage is based on Lev. 21:18. The omission of the other deformities found in Lev. 21 is to be explained as an oversight by the author. The Leviticus passage is only concerned with the disqualification of priests from the Temple service. In the Temple Scroll, the ban is extended to all Israel and to the entire City of the Sanctuary. This restriction probably applied to the other defects. Regarding blindness, the scroll does not note what defines blindness (as opposed to the Rabbis, in B. Ber 44a). It is probable that they would have accepted the greatest variety of deformities and blemishes as reasons for exclusion from priestly service in the Temple, and hence from entry into the sacred precincts. Other scrolls in Qumran view blindness as a deformity worthy of exclusion (1QM 7:4; 1QSa 2:6).
\n14. for I am the LORD Who dwells Num. 5:3 is the basis for this section. Yadin calls attention to Num. 5:2, which lists people who are impure and sent forth from the camp. This limited list was widened by our author through a midrash also based on Lev. 22:4\u20135. Those in the Leviticus list were added to those in the Numbers passage to produce a catalogue of those prohibited from entering the City of the Sanctuary. The author thus extended the priestly legislation of Israel; afflictions that disqualified priests from eating sacrifices now entirely excluded Israelites from the holy precincts.
\n15\u201318. And any man \u2026 until they are purified This list is based on Lev. 13 and appears also in Num. 5:2\u20134. These laws refer to the City of the Sanctuary, not to the entire city of Jerusalem. Before offering their purification offerings, these people had to wait outside the Temple during the period of purification.
\n15. pure from his issue Gonorrhea. Cf. Lev. 15:1\u201313.
\n16. wash all his flesh The author based this text regarding the purification of a person with gonorrhea on the explicit regulations of Lev. 15:2, 13. He added the word \u201call\u201d to indicate that the entire body must be fully immersed.
\nrunning water From a stream.
\n17. may not enter it That is, the City of the Sanctuary.
\ntzarua One afflicted with a particular skin disease that is usually incorrectly translated as \u201cleprosy.\u201d
\n18. purified Cf. Lev. 13:46.
\n46:1. where] (an) impure bird [shall no]t dw[ell] Lines 1\u20134 may concern some sort of scarecrow that is to be built above the gates to keep impure birds out of the temple precincts. Cf. M. Mid. 4:6; J.W. 5:244; and Eupolomus, Apud Eusebius, Praep. Evan. 451.
\n3. the Outer Courtyard These gates lead from outside the temple precinct into the outer courtyard.
\n7. upon which Literally, \u201cto which.\u201d
\n9. one hundred cubits wide The width seems to indicate that this was some form of ditch or earthwork, not a wall.
\n10. between the holy Temple and the city This text shows that the term \u201ccity\u201d could be used in the sense of the city\u2019s residential area. In this case, the barrier is designed to separate the sanctified temenos, which in our view is termed City of the Sanctuary, from the city of Jerusalem, which was intended by the author to surround the Temple complex. This boundary was to insure the holiness of the three courts surrounding the Temple.
\n10\u201311. so that they do not enter suddenly into My Temple Based on Num. 4:20. This text explicitly defines what it means to treat the Temple with sanctity: to be in awe of the sanctuary because of the indwelling of God\u2019s presence. This presence and the attendant sanctity it engenders are understood to radiate from the Temple to the rest of the land, thus endowing it and the people who dwell on it with holiness and sanctity.
\n11. they must sanctify My Temple That is, treat it as sanctified. Cf. Exod. 19:23 and 2 Chron. 29:5.
\n13. a place for a latrine Literally, \u201chand,\u201d as in Deut. 23:13. Cf. 1QM 7:6\u20137 for going out to relieve oneself.
\n15. will
\n16. three thousand cubits This figure is likely derived from Num. 35:4\u20135, which was understood to describe an area of 3,000 cubits surrounding the levitical cities. 1QM 7:6\u20137 places the latrines at a distance of 2,000 cubits from the military camp.
\n16\u201317. And you must construct three places to the east of the city These areas must have been outside the entire city of Jerusalem. Josephus (J.W. 5, v, 6 [227]) notes that those afflicted with gonorrhea, or tzarua, were excluded from the entire city. Those who came to the Temple for the seven-day purification rites were not allowed to enter it until the rites were completed. They stayed in these areas during the rituals and then entered the Temple to offer their sacrifices in a state of purity.
\nseparated from one another The presumption is that the various types of impurity can be contracted from one another, so that the classes of impure persons must be kept separate.
\n18. metzora\u2019im, the gonorrheics, and the men Women are not mentioned in this list since they had to undergo purification rituals in their own cities before coming to the Temple.
\n47:2. only at the t]op and never at the bott[om \u2026] Cf. Deut. 28:13 and 11QT 59:2.
\n3. And their cities [shall be] pure This column notes the requirement that the city in which God\u2019s presence dwells must be holy and free of all impurities. Note that there is no sense here of fear of the demonic or of the danger of impurity. Such notions, prominent in earlier periods, are totally absent from the scroll and its theology.
\n5. defiled Cf. Lev. 5:3.
\n7. liquid has been poured Or, \u201cliquid food.\u201d
\n8. their cities Cf. 11QT 52:13\u201321.
\n9. work with them With such hides.
\nBut they may not bring (them) into the city of My Temple The laws in this section are similar to those of 4QMMT B 18\u201323. The Temple Scroll, like the position attributed to the Sadducees in 4QMMT, opposes nonsacral slaughter in the City of the Sanctuary. For the scroll, meat for popular consumption was a product of the shelamim offering alone. The Pharisees and the Hasmoneans, however, did perform nonsacral slaughter in Jerusalem (cf. B. Kid. 57b). The polemic against such slaughter, and against the bringing of skins of animals slaughtered in this way into the Temple, or the bringing of animals slaughtered at a distance of more than a three days\u2019 journey, was a central issue for the Temple Scroll (cf. 11QT 52:14).
\n11\u201312. But (only) the hides (of animals) that they slaughter in the Temple From this passage it is clear that if improperly slaughtered hides are brought into the City of the Sanctuary, the Temple becomes impure. This only makes sense if the City of the Sanctuary is in fact the Temple precincts, which are required to maintain the temple standards of purity. Therefore, the only difference between mikdash and ir mikdash is technical: the former refers to the Temple building, the latter to the temenos. The City of the Sanctuary cannot refer to the entire city of Jerusalem.
\n13\u201314. hides of their abominable offerings In the Temple Scroll the root p-g-l refers to parts of animals that are not in their proper locations. The hides of our column become pigul (abominable) when brought into the City of the Sanctuary where they do not belong. The meat of column 52 is pigul because the sacrificial process was carried out in the wrong place, in an area where only sacrificial slaughter had been permitted. This contrasts with Rabbinic usage, which employs pigul to denote an offering that was sacrificed with the intention of completing its rites or eating it after the prescribed time, a temporal disqualification.
\n14. any city Qimron reads \u201chide\u201d and not \u201ccity.\u201d
\n48:1\u201310. [the stork; \u2026 the LORD your God This section is a harmonization of Lev. 11:13\u201325 and Deut. 14:1\u20133, 11\u201321. Lev. 11 provides the basic form of the passage, and Deut. 14 serves to supplement it.
\n3. you may eat Lev. 11:21\u201322.
\n5. their feet Literally, \u201cits,\u201d as the text changes to singular.
\n6. carcass An animal that died a natural death.
\n7. abominable thing Deut. 14:3.
\nholy nation unto Deut. 14:21.
\n8. neither lacerate yourselves, nor make bald spots The laws of excessive mourning are based on Deut. 14:1\u20132; Lev. 19:28; and Lev. 21:5.
\nforeheads Literally, \u201cbetween your eyes.\u201d
\n9. nor shall you tattoo any marks Lev. 19:28.
\n11. So do not do as the nations do; This phraseology is similar to 11QT 51:19\u201329.
\n11\u201312. they bury their dead anywhere Random burial was said to defile the land in the same way as idolatry. This ban can be traced to Num. 33:34. In fact, Num. 33:33 discusses the way in which innocent blood pollutes the land. The entire chapter deals with the levitical cities and the cities of refuge, and is in fact a description of settlement patterns. Random burial defiles the land by causing those passing through to be rendered impure. This concept may lie behind the \u201cpurifiers of the land\u201d in 1QM 7:2.
\n13\u201314. Between (every) four cities you shall apportion These sites were likely equidistant from the four cities. This law assumes that burial within the city limits is forbidden and that interment is to take place only in the designated areas. According to Yadin, the scroll assumes that a grave conveys uncleanness just as did the body itself. What is operating here, as in the previous law about tzara\u2019at, is the process of extending the laws of priestly and levitical purity to all of Israel and to the entire land. The tannaim prohibited burial in a walled city (M. Kel. 1:7), and the amoraim, in a levitical city (J. Mak. 2:7 [32a]), except in a case of accidental murder (M. Mak. 2:7).
\n16. and for women when they are in their period of impurity The Temple Scroll envisages the physical banishment of women who are ritually impure, not the total exclusion of women from ritual life. Josephus notes that, in the biblical view, impure women were to be physically excluded (Ant. 2 11.2 [261]). One version of the Mishnah mentions special houses for menstrually impure women (M. Nid. 7:4)
\nnot defile (others) in them In the cities. Cf. 11QT 45:17\u201318; 46:16\u201317.
\n17. chronic tzara\u2019at or scab Cf. Lev. 13:30\u201337.
\n49:5\u201310. And when a man dies \u2026 that is in them This law is based on Num. 19:14\u201315 and Lev. 11:33\u201334.
\n5\u20136. your cities, any house in which a dead man dies becomes impure for seven days The scroll begins by following Num. 19:14 but introduces three major changes. \u201cYour cities\u201d is added, indicating the scroll\u2019s notion that all Israel will be settled in an orderly manner in cities throughout the land. Additionally, the word \u201ctent\u201d of the biblical text is replaced by \u201chouse,\u201d as in the LXX. Furthermore, our scroll notes that the house is impure for seven days, whereas Num. 19:14 limits itself to the contents of the house. The source of the idea of an impure house must be Num. 19:18. This verse indicates that the tents must be impure; otherwise, why sprinkle them with waters of purification?
\n6. Anyone who is in the house The author adopts Num. 19:14 with changes of word order and substitution of \u201chouse\u201d for \u201ctent.\u201d The verse states: \u201cThis is the ritual: When a person dies in a tent, whoever enters the tent and whoever is in the tent shall be unclean seven days.\u201d The scroll assumes that both clauses in Num. 19:14 refer to people. The sages take the first clause to refer to people and the second to both people and things (Sifre Num., 126). Indeed, the Temple Scroll\u2019s reversal of the word order may be intended to make the point that the second clause, \u201ceverything in the tent,\u201d is also necessary if the verse is to refer exclusively to people.
\n7. wa[t]er shall be poured This passage is dependent on Lev. 11:34, 38, which note that foodstuffs moistened by potable water may become impure if certain items fall on them. Our passage similarly indicates that solid food is susceptible to the impurity of the dead if it has been moistened and that liquids used for drink are also susceptible to impurity.
\n8. earthenware vessels Upon which impure liquid has been poured. This prescription regarding closed vessels derives from Lev. 11:33, which deals with cases in which the source of impurity actually fell into the vessel. Our text takes as equivalent the case of a vessel that was in a building with a dead body, probably since corpse impurity was assumed to be of the highest degree.
\npure person Yadin observed that the biblical term \u201cpure person\u201d (Num. 19:9, 18) is used here to refer to one who observes the laws of levitical purity and impurity in his daily life, what the tannaitic sources term \u1e25aver.
\n9. But the open (vessels) shall be impure for every person in Israel If, as is probable, the first clause refers to even a closed vessel, then our text would be saying that even the contents of a closed vessel are impure for the \u201cpure person.\u201d For the average Jew, however, impurity is only contracted in the case of an open vessel and applies to both solids and liquids.
\n11. take the dead body out of it This section is an original composition based on material from Num. 19:18, which states that the tent is to be sprinkled along with the vessels. Our author took the requirement to sprinkle as indicating the need to wash certain key areas of the house. For the rest of the house, sweeping and scraping are sufficient.
\n12. floor, walls, and doors These parts are what the tannaim would call \u201cattached to the ground.\u201d Whereas the tannaim explain the impurity and need to sprinkle the tent in Num. 19:18 as resulting from the moveable nature of the tent, our text interprets the tent as totally equivalent to a house. Namely, the Temple Scroll espouses the belief that impurity of the dead applies to house parts that are \u201cattached to the ground.\u201d
\nthey shall scrape The notion of scraping may have been borrowed from the treatment of a house infected with plague. Such a house is scraped (Lev. 14:41), although the terminology is different (hif\u2018il of q-\u1e63\u2018). Nonetheless, this Leviticus text serves as a partial analog. Confirmation comes from the use of \u201cwalls of the house\u201d in Lev. 14:37, which was the basis for \u201cand its walls\u201d in 11QT 49:12.
\n13. On the day in which This law takes up the second element of the list in Num. 19:18, \u201call the vessels,\u201d and spells out their appropriate regulations.
\n14. millstones and mortar Yadin notes that these are actually the two most common types of stone vessels found in a house. This contrasts with tannaitic halakhah, which states that stone vessels do not contract impurity. CD 12:15\u201318 considers stones (or stone vessels) to contract impurity of the dead.
\n15. wood, iron, and bronze These items are based on a list in Num. 31:20\u201325. Our author does not enumerate all the metals, listing only those most common in households. No doubt the others are also susceptible to impurity.
\nall vessels that may be purified This is probably a reflex of Lev. 11:32 \u201cevery vessel with which work may be done,\u201d although this may intend to exclude the earthenware vessel that must be shattered.
\n17. bathe in water and wash his clothes on the first day This first-day ablution is not mentioned in the Bible. Yadin suggests that this bathing allows the bather to purify himself of any old impurities that may stand in the way of the third- and seventh-day rituals. Per Milgrom, its purpose is to allow the person to remain in the city.
\n18\u201319. third day \u2026 seventh day These requirements are based on Num. 19:19. The verse, however, requires that only the sprinkling take place on the third and seventh days. Bathing and washing are required only on the seventh. The three-day purification process in Exod. 19:10\u201315, which does include washing one\u2019s clothing, may be the basis of garment washing in our text. Additionally, if the author understands ve-kidashtem in v. 10 to refer to washing the body, then the Exodus passage includes both bathing and laundering on the third day.
\n18. they The priests.
\n20. And by evening Contra the Rabbinic concept of \u1e6devul yom. See note on 45.8.
\n21. their pure stuff That is, ritually pure food.
\n50:01. [\u2026] This fragmentary passage must have discussed those who had contact with the dead body itself, following Num. 19:11\u201313.
\n2. water of puri[fication Cf. Num. 19:9, 17, 20; 1QS 3:4.
\nfrom im]purity That is, mixture.
\n5. who touches \u2026 in the open field These laws are taken from Num. 19:13, 16\u201322. The author here composes a list of sources of impurity of the dead.
\nbone of a dead man The author added \u201cdead,\u201d specifying that it must be a dead man, not a living one. Tg. Ps.-J to Num. 19:16 understands this to mean even a bone of a live man as does Sifre Num. 127.
\n5\u20136. bone of a dead man, or one sla in with a sword, or a corpse Num. 19:16.
\n6. the blood of a dead man Based on interpretation of nefesh hadam in v. 13. Also based on Lev. 17:14 and Deut. 22:23.
\naccording to the statute of this regulation The intention of these words is to apply to this law the same purification ritual as applies when the impurity is contracted by being in a house with a dead body (11QT 49:16\u201321).
\n7. But if he does not purify himself Based on Num. 19:22.
\n9. by evening The author again emphasizes that purification is not complete until sunset.
\n11. impure like a grave This calls to mind Num. 19:16. Because this law is derived from that verse, it is placed immediately after the law referring to one who comes in contact with a grave in an open field. A similar notion is found in Rabbinic literature (M. Hul. 4:3; Sifre Num. 127; B. Hul. 72a). In tannaitic times the ability of such a fetus to impart impurity was viewed as being derived from biblical exegesis.
\n12. contact with it That is, the house.
\n13. house with her While she is in the house.
\n14. must be sprinkled Verb is active, but it means \u201cto undergo the process of sprinkling.\u201d
\n16. all the furnishings Author omits \u201csack.\u201d
\n18. must be broken This generalization is no doubt a summary of Num. 31:23.
\n21. they are dead Cf. Lev. 11:32.
\n51:05. any of them The creeping animals.
\n2. And anyone who touches them when] they are dead The scroll draws from the list of creeping animals in Lev. 11:29\u201338. Here the scroll follows Lev. 22:7 in ruling that the person is impure until after sunset.
\n4. any part of their bones \u2026 hide, meat, or nail This position may be in consonance with the Sadducean view (M. Yad. 4:6). This contrasts with the tannaim, according to whom these parts of the body of a pure animal do not impart carcass impurity. Agreement with the Temple Scroll can be seen in 4QMMT.
\n5. afterward Use of this word shows that the scroll\u2019s author is again emphasizing his opposition to the concept of \u1e6devul yom.
\n6\u201310. They must not become impure \u2026 holy These verses conclude this section, taking up the perorative themes of the revelation at Sinai and the indwelling of God among the people of Israel.
\n7. I relate to you on this mountain Although the passage refers directly only to purity regulations, it is unquestionable that the author\/redactor regards this entire \u201cTorah\u201d as divine. Its divine nature authorizes the scroll\u2019s exegesis, essentially calling it the substance of the Sinaitic revelation. Accordingly, the scroll tells us that God revealed the Sinaitic prescriptions of ritual purity to guarantee the purity of the people among whom He dwells. Holiness is effectively defined as abstinence from that which renders impure; holiness here is the equivalent of purity.
\n11. You must appoint judges Here begins the Deuteronomic Paraphrase (a section of the scroll that adapts and reorganizes the legal sections of Deuteronomy). This section begins with Deut. 16:18; then, after considerable reshaping of vv. 21\u201322, it continues with Deut. 17:1. In this section the author omits the words \u201cthat which the LORD your God has given you to settle.\u201d Feeling the tension between the requirement to appoint tribal courts and courts in cities, our author decided to follow a system of setting up courts by location and district rather than by tribal affiliation\u2014even though the scroll does envision the existence of tribal identification. It is possible that this is a disagreement between the author of the Deuteronomic Paraphrase and the authors of the other sections of the scroll.
\n13. For (the taking of) a bribe perverts justice This addition is intended to emphasize that that the Torah\u2019s statement at the start of v. 19, \u201cdo not pervert justice,\u201d was intended to refer to the taking of bribes, and not to be a general statement. In formulating this clause, the author must have been influenced by Exod. 23:6.
\n14. and defiling the Temple This is an original composition by the author. He is emphasizing his basic theme of the evil of injustice and judicial corruption. According to Deut. 17:8\u201313, the Temple is the place of final appeal in legal matters; and this intimate link between justice and the Temple is clearly presumed in this addition to the scroll. The Temple stands through the merit of justice; and injustice, therefore, defiles it.
\n15. in order that you may live and come to inherit In other words, the observance of the prohibition of judicial corruption is a condition of Jewish life in the Land of Israel.
\n17. must be put to death This is the author\u2019s own legal statement. Our author midrashically compares the command of avoiding the show of favoritism in Deut. 1:17 to the obligation to execute a false prophet in Deut. 18:22. (Both use the words lo taguru.) He concludes that just as the death penalty is required for the false prophet, so it is for the judges who accepted bribes. This may have also been influenced by the law of the idolatrous prophet in Deut. 13:10.
\n18. of putting him to death Literally, \u201cafraid of him from putting him to death.\u201d
\n19. You must not do within your land This section combines Deut. 12:2, where the Israelites are commanded to destroy all the worship places of the non-Jews, with v. 3, in which they are to extirpate the names of pagan gods \u201cfrom that place.\u201d Lev. 18:3 adds the idea of not following the ways of the Gentiles. In creating his list of prohibited practices, the author harmonizes Deut. 16:21\u201322 with Lev. 26:1, which also mentions stone figures.
\nas the na
\n52:01. [altars \u2026] This unpreserved section must have been the prescriptive laws relating to idolatry. It again takes up Deut. 16:21\u201322.
\n3. And you may not The scroll adds the conjunctive vav, meaning \u201cand.\u201d This addition is in consonance with the absence of a space denoting a new paragraph before this commandment.
\n4. sacrifice to Me Replacement of third person with first for God is the scroll\u2019s usual pattern.
\ndisqualifying blemish The author changes the MT davar (thing) to mum (blemish) under the influence of Deut. 15:21, thus removing the potential ambiguity of davar and emphasizing that the prohibition is against a serious blemish. The tannaim interpret similarly (Sifre Deut. 126).
\n7. (As to) every firstborn This section is an almost verbatim quotation of Deut. 15:19\u201323. The author replaces third person with first and singular with plural.
\n9. you eat it The scroll omits \u201cyou and your household\u201d found in the MT. This omission may be connected with the question of who is to eat the firstborn animals. Our passage excepts the owner, yet ancient Jewish exegesis took the view that the priests were to eat the firstborn. Since the words \u201cyou and your household,\u201d if taken literally, might be \u201cincorrectly\u201d understood as referring to eating in your own house, hence eaten by the owner, they had to be excised. The fact that the firstborn animal, blemished or unblemished, belongs to the priest can be seen in 11QT 60:2.
\n10. your gates That is, \u201ccities.\u201d
\n11. the pure and the impure among you alike This refers to the eaters, not to kosher and non-kosher animals.
\n12. and cover it with dirt This is an example of original composition based on Lev. 17:13. The same addition appears in 11QT 53:5\u20136. The Rabbis understand Lev. 17:13 to indicate that the blood of undomesticated animals must be covered after slaughter (B. Hul. 86b). Our scroll understands this requirement to apply also in cases of domesticated animals.
\nover its grain The author changed the proposition from \u201cin\u201d to \u201cover\u201d to solve the ambiguity of who is violating the law: the one who puts a muzzle on an ox before threshing, one who threshes with a muzzled animal, or both? Accordingly, the Temple Scroll holds responsible one who places a muzzle on an animal that is entering or already in its threshing area.
\n13. plough with an ox and a donkey together The author took this verbatim quote out of its original context in Deut. 22 to indicate the significance of this restriction. This restriction is not just one of mixing, but seeks to prevent the suffering of animals.
\nYou may not slaughter an ox This section is also an original composition, although there are some parallel biblical phrases (Gen 7:2; Lev. 19:7). This law may constitute a new case or be a continuation of lines 9\u201312, which refer to the blemished firstborn animal.
\n14. (a distance of) three days\u2019 journey The author bases this law on a harmonization of many verses in Deut. 12, adopting the three days\u2019 distance for all the sacrifices discussed in this chapter. The material in Deut. 12:20\u201325 alludes twice to distance from the sanctuary as the reason for permitting non-sacral slaughter. Yet in vv. 15\u201316 the context is different. After having discussed sacral slaughter and the requirement that it be performed in the central sanctuary in 13\u201314, the text turns to 15\u201316, where no mention of distance occurs, although nonsacral slaughter is discussed and permitted. This would have led to the conclusion that nonsacral slaughter is in fact permitted anywhere and that the distance aspect is simply relevant to Deut. 12:20\u201325. Our author wanted to be certain that no hint or remnant of any possibility of non-sacral slaughter existed in the vicinity of the Temple (i.e., within three days\u2019 journey), so he had to interpret this passage as he did, as a duplicate of vv. 20\u201325.
\n18. all around of thirty ris The ris (a Persian measure) is the Lat. stadium. Thirty ris are equal to about four Roman miles. This comes to explain the exact measure of the original biblical phrase \u201cin your gates.\u201d For the purpose of this law, this phrase means at least this distance from the sanctuary. This measure appears in 4Q 265 7 5\u20136 regarding the Sabbath. Ris is also used in the New Jerusalem texts as a measurement (4Q554 2 i\u2013ii).
\n19. ox, , or a goat This brings the text back to Deut. 17:1 and Lev. 17:3. It also returns explicitly to line 13, which treats a similar subject.
\nMy city that I sanctify This is the City of the Sanctuary, where only meat slaughtered as a sacrifice may be eaten. This law results from interpretation of Deut. 12:26\u201329. V. 27 notes that one should sacrifice one\u2019s meat to God. The author takes this positive commandment and derives a negative one: \u201cdo not eat meat\u201d not slaughtered as a sacrifice.
\n21. and burn its fat This is derived from Lev. 17:6, where it appears along with the obligation that the blood be sprinkled by a priest for the shelamim sacrifices. Even though the scroll understands this passage in Leviticus as referring to the law for areas within three days\u2019 journey of Jerusalem, the author learns from here that for all the shelamim sacrifices in the sanctuary there is an obligation to burn the fats, even when the purpose of the sacrifices is only to secure meat for human consumption.
\n53:07. When I enlarge your territory as I] From here through line 8 the text is based primarily on Deut. 12:20\u201325, harmonized with 12:15\u201316. This harmonization was viewed as necessary by the author because he understood both sections to deal with nonsacral slaughter at a distance from the Temple. Our scroll wanted to remove any possibility of another understanding and, therefore, wove the entirety into a unified whole that provides for the permissibility of nonsacral slaughter at a distance of three days\u2019 travel from Jerusalem.
\n5. certain Literally, \u201cstrong.\u201d
\n5\u20136. cover it with dirt See above on 52:12.
\n6. For the blood is the life-essence The change in order (in Deuteronomy the spilling of the blood appears in v. 24 and the warning against eating blood appears before it in v. 23) is intended to create a harmonization with v. 16 whose order mirrors that in the Temple Scroll.
\n11. And if you make a vow, do not delay in fulfilling it The entire oath section is a detailed adaptation of Deut. 23:22\u201324 and Num. 30:3\u201317. require it of you Literally, \u201cfrom your hand.\u201d Note as well the shift to first person.
\n12. If you refrain and do not vow The author changes from the MT ve-khi tehdal lin-dor. The author seeks to emphasize the character of this verse as a negative commandment: Abstain from vowing, and you will thus avoid transgression. To his mind, one ought never to vow. Nevertheless, he prescribes the regulations regarding vows for those who have violated this command. Josephus (J.W. 2 135) notes that the Essenes avoided oaths, yet their rites included oaths (J.W. 2,139).
\n14. And when a man makes a vow to Me The scroll now turns to Num. 30:3. Once again the command is in first person.
\n16. And if a woman vows a vow to Me Num. 30:4\u20135.
\n17. by an oath (taken) The addition of \u201cby an oath\u201d defines the otherwise ambiguous first occurrence of the MT ve-aserah issar. The addition of \u201coath\u201d defines this issar as an oath. Further references to issar in the Temple Scroll are understood the same way.
\nduring her youth The original intent of the Torah was probably that vows could be annulled for as along as the unmarried girl dwelled in her father\u2019s house. The Temple Scroll may have taken the Torah at face value. The status of na\u2018arah may refer to the age of legal majority for a girl, some time at the onset of the conclusion of puberty. At this point her vows would attain validity. As long as she remains her in father\u2019s house, however, she is a na\u2018arah and her vows are subject to annulment.
\n19\u201320. And if her father From here the scroll follows Deut. 12 loosely, primarily based on vv. 15\u201319. Then the text turns to Deut. 12:20\u201326, where it diverges to include extensive material on oaths and vows from Num. 30:3\u201317.
\n54. 1. [when he] h[ears The scroll continues to adapt Num. 30:16, which is adapted considerably.
\ncancels them His wife\u2019s vows.
\n2. her transgression Or, \u201cher penalty.\u201d
\n[her] h[usband has cancelled them He has cancelled her vows after the deadline. When she does not fulfill these vows, it is he who is guilty for cancelling them in a manner not legally valid.
\n(As to) any vow] or any binding o[ath to afflict oneself,] This is an adaptation of Num. 30:14\u201315. The entire section is a fitting continuation to the section on a married woman\u2019s oaths since it takes up the special case of a married woman\u2019s vows. The scroll does not deal with the reason why the Torah singles out vows and oaths of self-abnegation.
\n4. But as to any vow (made) by a widow or a divorc\u00e9e By removing this material (v. 10) from its context in the middle of the discussion of married women, the author indicates his view that vv. 11\u201313 refer to all married women, not just to widows or divorc\u00e9es. The repositioning of v. 10 seems to result from a misunderstanding of vv. 11\u201312. The actual meaning of these verses is that if a woman had vowed or taken an oath while still married, then the applicability of the obligation after her marriage terminated would depend on whether her husband had confirmed or annulled it. Our author, however, takes these verses as a repetition of the laws for the normal married woman and therefore rearranges the order of the verses.
\n5. that comes forth from her mouth Cf. Num. 30:3.
\n8. If there will arise among you This text draws from Deut. 13. It follows Deut. 13:2\u201319 closely, then moving back to Deut. 17 because of the subject matter.
\n8\u20139. sign or wonder The substitution of \u201csign or wonder\u201d for \u201csign and wonder\u201d is both harmonizing (with v. 2) and exegetical. It clarifies that either a sign or a miracle is necessary, not both.
\n10. that you do not know The scroll makes clear that these words are not included in the direct discourse of the prophet by moving them. This also constitutes a harmonization with Deut. 13:14.
\n13. You should follow Literally, \u201cwalk after.\u201d
\n19. the son of your father or \u201cThe son of your father or\u201d is omitted in MT and preserved in the Qumran MSS of Deuteronomy, in LXX, and in the Samaritan Pentateuch.
\n20. shall entice you secretly saying These laws follow Deut. 13:7\u201312 regarding one who attempts to entice others to perform idolatrous worship. It is essentially verbatim. There is no significant halakhic or exegetical activity in this passage.
\n55:07. And all of Israel shall listen and fear Following Deut. 21:21.
\n2. If you hear regarding on[e of your cities This passage generally follows Deut. 13:13\u201319, largely shifting to first person, but keeping the third person in lines 9\u201310 and 14. Interesting is the shift in the meaning of the first person from Moses in Deut. 13:19 to God in the scroll. This shift of referent results from the change in context occasioned by the move to first person, direct, divine discourse.
\n3. all the [in] habitants This addition indicates that according to the scroll all the inhabitants must worship idols for this law to apply. Note that in line 6 all the inhabitants are killed. This is a clear legal modification, and it also agrees with LXX. The scroll also adds \u201call\u201d in line 8 when dealing with the destruction of animals. Parallel with LXX proves that these changes could have taken place in the Vorlage of the author and may not be original to him. This view contrast with the tannaim, who require only that a majority worship idols (M. San. 4:1). The scroll shuns collective responsibility.
\n6. among (the people of) Israel Our text renders \u201camong Israel\u201d instead of MT \u201cin your midst.\u201d Under the influence of 11QT 55:20 and Deut. 17:14.
\nyou must obliterate all the inhabitants This contrasts with the view of some tannaim, who maintain that the children of this city are to be spared (T. San. 14:3; and addition to Sifre Deut. 94).
\n8. all its domesticated animals you must kill That is, permissible, edible animals. This contrasts with some tannaitic views that certain animals designated as offerings are to be saved (T. San. 14:5).
\n10. the property to be destroyed The Heb. implies that these objects must be destroyed because they have absorbed the sin of the idolaters.
\n15. If there be found in your midst The section on the idolatrous individual is based on Deut. 17:2\u20137. The scroll\u2019s author placed it here because of the similarity of the material to Deut. 13:13\u201319.
\nyour gates That is, cities.
\n18. the sun, moon, or to any heavenly host Our scroll changes MT \u201cand the sun\u201d and \u201cand the heavenly host\u201d to \u201cor.\u201d In doing so, our text clarifies that worshiping either one is a warrant for death.
\nand they Witnesses, not the idolaters.
\n19. you shall listen to this charge \u201cThis charge\u201d was added and is a harmonization with Deut. 17:5. Additionally, the scroll\u2019s author wants to clarify that the investigation will be conducted only after hearing this charge, so that the hearing is separate and precedes the investigation. This seems to be an attempt to eliminate an ambiguity.
\nyou shall seek out This addition is based on Deut. 13:15 and represents a harmonization with the law of the idolatrous city (Deut. 13:13\u201319), which is of similar literary character and content.
\n20. performed among (the people of) Israel Most of the preceding material is common to Deut. 17:4 and 13:15. Our scroll follows 17:4 in concluding with the word \u201cIsrael.\u201d
\n21. and stone them with rocks The remainder of this law is restored based on Deut. 17:5\u20137.
\n56:06. dispute in your gates Gates, where the courts were situated.
\n07\u20131. and you will come to the levitical priests] ] [o]r to the [j]u[dge This section is an adaptation and expansion of Deut. 17:8\u201313. The scroll reads \u201cor\u201d instead of MT\u2019s \u201cand.\u201d Our scroll allows the option of trying the case either in a priestly venue or in a lay court. This is also the reading of LXX, several MSS of MT, SP, and Lucianic and Theodotionic renderings.
\n12. When you enter the land that I am giving you This passage is virtually identical to Deut. 17:14\u201315, except that, as is his general technique, the author\/redactor has replaced the third person \u201cwhich the LORD your God is giving you\u201d with the first person. This is intended to emphasize that this rewritten Torah, the Temple Scroll, is the direct revelation of God, which has not been delivered through any intermediary.
\n14. you shall certainly set over yourselves a king The scroll considers it an obligation for the Jewish people to be ruled by a monarch. This accords with the majority view in B. Sanh. 20b against the simple-sense reading of 1 Sam. 8. The Law of the King is in its entirety a statement of law. Recall that this text is a revisionist document intended to construct an ideal premessianic society. This demand may be a critique of the early Hasmonean rulers who, while serving as High Priests, arrogated to themselves the temporal powers of the king. The Temple Scroll requires that the king and priest remain distinct parties.
\nFrom your own brethren you shall set a king This law is an almost verbatim repetition of Deut. 17:15. The language of MT has been strengthened from \u201cyou are not able to set\u201d to \u201cyou may not.\u201d This change eliminates the possibility of interpreting the establishment of a monarchy as optional. Nothing in the Temple Scroll indicates how Jewishness is determined.
\n15\u201316. Additionally, he may not keep for himself many horses This is an adaption of Deut. 17:16\u201317. In addition to changing the text to first person, the author uses the singular \u201chorse,\u201d and changes the direction of the command from \u201cthey\u201d to \u201che,\u201d that is, the king.
\n16. back to Egypt to wage war The scroll adds \u201cto wage war\u201d to Deuteronomy\u2019s restriction on sending people back to Egypt. This eliminates an ambiguity as the author sees the prohibition as covering only military action. It excludes commercial activity, such as that conducted by Solomon, contrasting with J. San. 10:8, which permits returning to Egypt in order to conquer it.
\n17. silver, and gold This is added by analogy with the latter part of the Deuteronomic text. Josephus (Ant. 13, 10. 1[273]) states that the unrest in Syria \u201cgave Hyrcanus leisure to exploit Judea undisturbed, with the result that he amassed a limitless sum of money.\u201d This time period would provide a likely setting for the repetition of the Torah\u2019s legislation against the king\u2019s sending his people to war to increase his own wealth.
\n18. many wives, lest they This is changed from the singular, emphasizing the plurality of wives that will lead him astray. Similar interpretation is found in the Peshitta and by Rabbi Judah in M. San. 2:4.
\n20\u201321. they shall write for him This is a change from the MT \u201che shall write.\u201d The scroll expects the copying to be done by others. This seems to contrast with M. San. 2:4, which assumes the king himself will write his Torah. Philo (Special Laws 4,160) expects the king to write it with his own hand. The emphasis in M. San. 2:4, however, indicates that it must be written on the king\u2019s behalf, thus agreeing with our scroll.
\n21. this instruction This departs slightly from Deut. 17:18, mishneh ha-torah. The view of the author of the Law of the King is that the ruler is required to write the Law of the King as it appears in the scroll rather than in the book of Deuteronomy, as expected by the Septuagint and Philo (Spec. Laws 4,160).
\n57:1. the law Or, Torah.
\n2. they shall take a ce]ns[us It is impossible to determine who is taking the census.
\n3. twenty until the age of sixty These ages only appear together in Lev. 27:3, which indicates the age of a full-valued man. The Temple Scroll is here following the biblical age for military service and is at variance with the sectarian corpus (e.g., CD 10:6\u20137 and 1QSa 1:12\u201313).
\nAnd he (the king) shall set The scribe originally wrote \u201cand they (the priests) shall set,\u201d but corrected the text by erasure to read as it does now. The king is to appoint the officers. The error likely resulted from influence of the restored plural at the end of line 1. Deut. 20:9 assigns this role to the officer. The paraphrase of this law in 11QT 62:4\u20135 assigns this responsibility to the judges. This may indicate that the scroll had multiple authors.
\n4. commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds This division of military units is found in biblical (Exod. 18:21; Deut. 1:15), sectarian (1QS 2:21\u201323; 1QM 4:1\u20135), and other Second Temple documents (1 Macc. 3:5). This commonality reflects the tendency of all these texts to re-create the perfection of the desert wandering.
\n6. twelve thousand warriors This number appears in Num. 31:3\u20134, which describes the army sent against the Midianites. It is impossible to know why this model for the king\u2019s guard was chosen. Perhaps the author saw it as representing the elite of each tribe. Furthermore, Solomon had 12,000 horsemen (1 King 5:6; 10:26).
\n8\u20139. trustworthy men, God-fearers, who spurn unjust gain This is based on Exod. 18:21, which describes the officers appointed by Moses at Jethro\u2019s suggestion. This approach of selecting God-fearing men is one of the major reforms the scroll calls for and is a critique of the Hasmoneans\u2019 hiring foreign mercenaries. This law implies rule by a king who can trust his subjects to defend him, a king who reflects the life of Torah that the scroll as a whole demands of the Jews.
\n10. guard him from any sinful thing If this is a critique of the Hasmonean kings, then the scroll may have thought the Hasmonean rulers were absorbing too much foreign influence. Accordingly, \u201cany sinful thing\u201d can refer to acts of violence committed against the king.
\n11. lest he be captured This may be based on the historical incident of Jonathan the Hasmonean being captured and killed by Trypo (1 Macc. 12:39\u201313:24). Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca Historica 1, 70, 1st century BCE) notes that the Egyptian king was regulated by laws and that sacred writings were to be recited before him so that he would contemplate \u201cexcellent general principles.\u201d The Egyptian royal guard had to be of free men, descendants of priests, over 20 years of age, and educated.
\n11\u201312. Twelve princes They represent the 12 tribes. This system functions prominently in the Temple Scroll. The ideal world of the author is the ancient tribal division, as seen in his architectural plan of the Temple.
\n12. twelve priests, and twelve of the Levites This requirement is not surprising in light of both the sectarian corpus and the tannaitic requirement that attempted to include priests and Levites in the courts (Sifre Deut. 153). The number 12 features prominently in sectarian literature. The two-thirds majority of priestly representation guarantees that the king will be controlled by the religious leaders of the people.
\n14. and for (reaching decisions about) the law Such a body existed in pre- and post-Maccabean times in Judea, likely modeled on the biblical council of elders. This body is found in many Second Temple sources (e.g., Ant 20, 3. 3 [138]). John Hyrcanus was supported by a coalition of Pharisees and Sadducees, which created difficulties (Ant. 12, 10. 5 [288\u201396]). Our author envisions instead a more stable balance of power.
\n15\u201316. from amongst the daughters of the nations Although Pentateuchal law singles out the Canaanites, by this time the prohibition had expanded to all non-Jews. Our scroll here may also have prohibited the king from marrying a convert, which may constitute a separate class of individual. The author wishes to elevate the sanctity of the king to that of the High Priest.
\n17. from the family of his father This phrase means that the king must marry one who was born a Jew, from among the wider family of Israel. Although this passage may refer alternatively to the king marrying only within his family and clan, such a measure has no logical explanation. This requirement may also serve to constrain the king from marrying a member of the proselyte class, and it also strengthens the parallel between the king and the High Priest, who must marry a virgin \u201cfrom his people.\u201d
\nAnd in addition to her he should not take another wife Unlike later Rabbinic views (B. Sanh. 21b), the king is limited to one wife. This passage, whose language is taken from Lev. 18:18, may refer to only the king or to all of Israel. Some have related this passage to the prohibition of polygamy in CD 4:20\u20135:9.
\n18. she alone must be with him all the days of her life This may indicate that divorce is not a possibility. Our author may even regard this as a positive commandment for the husband and wife to live together until one of them dies.
\n19. He (the king) may not pervert justice This law is clearly derived from Deut. 16:19, which is understood by our text to be directed to the king rather than to the entire people. The appearance of this biblical passage in two places in the Temple Scroll argues in favor of those who maintain that the Law of the King was already a separate compilation before being added to the scroll. This statement may have been influenced by 1 Sam. 8:3.
\n20\u201321. He may not covet a field or a vineyard This is derived from 1 Sam. 8:14 and Micah 2:2. Our scroll understands \u201ccovet\u201d to mean an action, not just an emotion, such as the abuse of power described in 1 Kings 21:2, 6 regarding the vineyard of Naboth. The king\u2019s power is limited, and the rights of his subjects are protected.
\n58:3. any nation or people who are seeking to rob This is distinct from the offensive war dealt with in 58:15\u201321, which requires permission of the High Priest and the Urim and Thummim. A parallel distinction between optional and required war is seen in M. So\u1e6d 8:7. This distinction stems from Deut. 20:15\u201316, which distinguishes between wars against nations \u201cwho are very far from you\u201d and the Canaanite nations.
\n13. the king his tenth There is no clear biblical precedent for this number. According to 1 Sam. 8:15\u201317 the king receives one-half of the grain, fruit of the vineyards, and flocks. Abraham gave a tithe of one-tenth to Melchizedek in Gen. 14:20.
\n14. And they shall divide the remainder The remaining details of the division are a harmonization of Num. 31:27\u201330 with 1 Sam. 30:24\u201325. Numbers had ordained dividing the booty in half, between the warriors and the rest of the congregation. The warriors were then to set aside one-five hundredth as a tribute to God, which was given to Elazar the priest. From the half apportioned to the people one-fiftieth was to be given to the Levites. 1 Samuel, which provided that half of the booty was to be allotted to the warriors who went out to battle while half was to be given to those who remained with the baggage, explicitly identifies this law as a permanent statute. Based on these two biblical passages, the author determined that after the king receives his tenth, the priests are given a thousandth, the Levites a hundredth, and the remainder is to be divided between the warriors and those who stayed back to protect the cities. 1QM 7:2 provides military units for despoiling the slain and collecting booty. Josephus (Ag. Ap. II, 29 [212]) claims that despoiling is forbidden by the Torah, although no such prohibition exists. It is also probable that this division of spoils was only for a defensive war.
\n17. They shall keep themselves from every impure thing This is based directly on Deut. 23:10, 15. 1QM7:5f contains similar requirements.
\nfrom any transgression or guilt Referring to an act that incurs guilt.
\n18. He (the king) may not go out (to war) until he comes before the High Priest Both our scroll and the Rabbis deny the king the right to mount an offensive war without the concurrence of another authority. For the Rabbis this was the Court of Seventy-One (M. Sot. 8:7); for our scroll, the High Priest.
\n19. At his (the High Priest\u2019s) word Lines 18\u201320 are an almost verbatim quotation from the appointment of Joshua in Num. 27:21.
\n20. by the counsel of his heart This addition includes the word etzah, \u201ccounsel,\u201d a manner of speaking known to be characteristic of the Qumran sect. This may be further proof that the Law of the King is an independent source, perhaps originating at Qumran or in related circles.
\n59:2\u201313. they will scatter \u2026 My people This passage repeats the Deuteronomic cycle of sin, punishment, atonement, and redemption. It is unmodified from the original biblical text. It has a close parallel in 4QMMT C 11\u201322.
\n13. As for the king The author adapts the admonitions of Deut. 28 and various related passages that deal with the people of Israel as a whole to the king and his descendants. This adaptation may be inspired by mention of the monarch in Deut. 28:36. This should be considered an original composition.
\n16. But if he follows My statutes, and observes My commandments Clearly based on Lev. 26:3. The mandate for applying this verse to the king can be found in 1 Kings 6:12, which uses similar phraseology in God\u2019s words to Solomon.
\n17\u201318. from sitting on the throne of the kingdom of Israel forever We can infer from this passage that the scroll\u2019s author viewed the Hasmonean monarchy as fleeting because its rulers did not practice in accordance with the Law of the King. Interestingly, there is no mention of Davidic descendants, and the author uses the designation \u201cIsrael\u201d instead of \u201cJudah.\u201d Reference to these figures would be anachronistic from the point of view of the scroll.
\n19. those who seek to take his life This fits with the requirement of a royal bodyguard and is in consonance with the experience of the Jews in the early Hasmonean period when Jonathan was captured and murdered.
\n60:04. [This is the priests\u2019 due This material is found in Deut. 18:1\u20138 and Num. 18.
\n2. their wave offerings In our text, these include the breast of the shelamim offerings, the breast of the consecration ram, and the Nazirite shoulder portion.
\nmale first-born Num. 14:5.
\n2\u20133. all the ti[t]h[e] of their animals Lev. 27:32. Our text understands \u201choly to the LORD\u201d in Leviticus to mean \u201cgiven to the priests.\u201d See also 4QMMT B 63\u201364.
\n3\u20134. their hol[y] (fruit offerings) of praise Lev. 19:24. This portion is given to the priests; in Rabbinic law the owner eats it in Jerusalem (M. Ma\u2019as. S. 5:2.)
\n5. of whatever they trap The use of terumah in Num. 18:19 and Num. 31:41 allow the author to ascribe the percentage of one-one thousandth to animals trapped during nonmilitary activity.
\nwhatever they will devote Alludes to Num. 18:14.
\ntribute from the booty and the spoil This section is based on the discussion of the booty from the battle with Midian described in Num. 31:25\u201347. There, from the 50 percent of the spoils apportioned to the fighting men, a tribute is taken of one-five hundredth of the spoils of the humans and animals captured; this tribute of one-one thousandth of the total is to be given to Eleazar the priest. The Numbers passage also specifies that from the half of the booty apportioned to the noncombatant Israelites, the Levites are to be given one-fiftieth of the portion of spoils of humans and animals captured. Our author arrived at the total of one-one thousandth, which was also the same for the military tribute (11QT 58:11\u201315). Num. 31 had required a portion of one-five hundredth out of half the total booty. Such a figure is equivalent to one-one thousandth of the total booty.
\n6. And to the Levites (you shall give) This passage continues Num. 18:25\u201331, with some influence of Deut. 18.
\n7. they first sanctified to Me This may be the Rabbinic \u201cfirst tithe,\u201d or perhaps the scroll understands that the tithes are first apportioned to the LORD and then given to the Levites. It is also possible to see the assignment to the Levites as an attempt to compensate for a gradual reassertion of priestly rights over tithes in Second Temple times.
\nthe shoulder from those offering a sacrifice Our scroll is unique in assigning to the Levites the shoulder of sacrificial animals. This portion is the upper end of the foreleg and is never mentioned by the Bible as an offered portion. This may come to explain Deut. 18:1\u20133, which notes that portions go to \u201cthe priests the Levites, the entire tribe of Levi.\u201d The author divides the foreleg into two portions: the lower going to priests and the upper to the Levites. This was also encouraged by the common ancient Near Eastern practice of offering the shoulder and foreleg as one unit.
\n8. one hundredth Num. 31:47 indicates that the Levites were given a fiftieth as their portion. But this was a fiftieth of one-half of the booty\u2014that belonging to the noncombatants. Hence, the total share of the Levities amounted to one-one hundredth of the entire booty. It was this amount that the Temple Scroll fixed as the levitical tribute from the spoils of war and the trapping of pigeons mentioned in the following line.
\n9. the young pigeons Semiwild trapped pigeons.
\nthe honey Wild-bee honey. Fruit honey would have been tithed in its original state as fruit. The source of honey requiring a tithe is 2 Chron. 31:4\u20136. In this passage, Hezekiah commands the inhabitants of Jerusalem to tithe certain produce, and honey is included in the list.
\nAnd for the priests This was added to the text. It clearly addresses the priests only as it refers to the priestly benediction.
\n12. When a Levite comes This text returns to Deut. 18:5.
\n61:01. they listen to the augurs and soothsayers Deut. 18:14\u201322.
\n6. A single witness may not Deut. 19:15.
\n13. go forth to wage war This section is mostly a recital of Deut. 20:1\u201310, with some changes, such as a shift to first person. These exemptions do not appear in War Scroll, probably as a result of the principle, also accepted by the tannaim, that the exemptions only apply to an optional war, whereas the eschatological war is obligatory. This matter is ignored by the Law of the King.
\n62:4. When the judges have finished Judges replace the MT \u201cbailiffs.\u201d This variant is probably an example of the phenomenon of synonymous variation, since a biblical \u201cjudge\u201d is often a military leader, not an arbiter of justice.
\n6. approach a city to fight against it This paragraph is a recapitulation of Deut. 20:10\u201318. Once again, God appears as the speaker.
\n13. I am giving you as an inheritance you shall not save In contrast to the Law of the King, this section distinguishes between optional and obligatory war. Here we have the law for a nation invading its new homeland, not that of a nation attacking its hostile neighbors, as in the Law of the King. There is no mention of need of approval.
\n15. Girgashite(s) They are not mentioned in the biblical text. The author added them to round out the list of seven nations that Israel is commanded to destroy.
\n63:03. Are trees of the field human Following NJPS, which follows Rashi.
\n05\u201306. someone slain is found lying] [in the open This corresponds to Deut. 21:1\u20139.
\n5. the head of the heifer MT does not have \u201chead.\u201d The text clarifies a halakhic requirement, namely that washing the hands must be done in such a manner that the water drips down over the head of the heifer whose neck has already been broken. This variant is found in the LXX. A similar requirement is found in M. Sot. 9:6 and Sifre Deut. 209, both of which state that the washing is to be performed over the place where the animal\u2019s neck was broken, that is, over the back of the neck.
\nwas broken in the wadi The water from the lustrations is expected to flow back into the stream and in some way to purify the earth of the transgression of the murder. M. Sot. 9:6 notes a similar requirement.
\n10. When you go out to war against your enemies This is essentially a recapitulation of Deut. 21:10\u201314 with some significant changes, for example, all the references are switched to first person.
\n11. a woman of beautiful appearance The scroll replaces the Heb. construct \u201cwoman of\u201d with the more typical \u201cwoman.\u201d The tannaim learn from this construct that this text refers to a married woman (Sifre Deut. 211).
\n12\u201313. Then you shall bring her into your house, shave her head, pare her nals, and remove her captive\u2019s garb The scroll changes the subject of the actions from the new bride to the Israelite soldier. He is to cut her hair and her nails. This requirement is an interpretation of the word \u201cand you shall do\u201d (Deut. 21:12). This is taken by various tannaim to mean either to pare the nails or grow them long (Sifre Deut. 212).
\n14. have sexual relations with her The scroll assumes that in the course of the military campaign the husband-to-be was attracted to this woman whom he brings home, there to make her his wife. This practice has no negative connotations, and the procedures are designed to cleanse and purify.
\n15. seven years This may be some sort of initiation requirement. CD 12:5\u20136 imposes a seven-year probationary period on a violator of the Sabbath.
\n64:04. [If a man has two wives Deut. 21:15\u201317.
\n2. If a man has a wayward and defiant son Deut. 21:18\u201321.
\n7. an informant among My people, and he delivers My people This section is a reworking of Deut. 21:22\u201323.
\n13\u201365:04. You must not see your brother\u2019s ox \u2026 help him raise it Deut. 22:1\u20134.
\nA woman must not put on man\u2019s garment Deut. 22:5.
\n06\u201308. You shall not sow your vineyard (with) \u2026 you cover yourself] Based on Deut. 22:10\u201312. The author\/redactor of the scroll moved this prohibition up from its place in Scripture because of the topical connection with the previous verse. This entire section deals with improper mixtures.
\n2. If, along the road, you chanc[e] upon a bird\u2019s nest Based on Deut. 22:6\u20137.
\n5. When you build a new house Deut. 22:8.
\n7. If a man marries a woman and has sexual relations with her This section runs almost parallel to Deut. 22:13\u201321. Under the influence of Deut. 24:1, the author substitutes \u201cand he marries her\u201d for MT \u201cand had sexual relations with her.\u201d This clarifies the legal situation by emphasizing that l-q-\u1e25 means \u201cmarry\u201d and therefore that the accusation of nonvirginity is actually a claim that the conditions of the marriage agreement have been violated.
\n9. father of the girl or her mother Or replaces the potentially ambiguous MT vav \u201cand.\u201d Either parent could furnish the proof of the daughter\u2019s virginity.
\n66:05. If a man is found lying with another man\u2019s wife] Deut. 22:22.
\n07\u201308. If a virgin girl] [is betrothed to a man, and a(nother) man finds her Parallel to Deut. 22:23\u201327.
\n4. in a place far from the city and hidden (from it) This explains the biblical \u201cin the field.\u201d The point is to emphasize that for the maiden to be exempted from punishment, without recourse to determining if she did or did not cry out, the act had to have been committed in a place where there would have been no one to hear. The Rabbis derive this point from \u201cthere is no one to save her\u201d; if there is, she must scream and seek help.
\n8\u20139. If a man seduces a virgin girl The author created one law here out of Exod. 22:15\u201316 and Deut. 22:28\u201329. Later tannaitic tradition saw these as two separate laws, understanding the Exodus verses as referring to a case in which an unbetrothed virgin was seduced, and Deuteronomy as discussing the rape of such a girl. The Temple Scroll and tannaitic sources faced the same difficulty: how to make sense out of the various verses in the Torah referring to similar issues. Our author was guided by the opinion that t-p-s cannot refer to rape and must refer to seduction.
\n9. and she is fitting to (marry) him according to the law This is not found in either of the author\u2019s sources. The author intends to make clear that the requirement for the seducer to marry the girl he seduced after paying a bride price exists only in cases where the girl is permitted to marry the man according to the laws of consanguineous marriage, which follow immediately after in the scroll. This clarifies that the positive commandment to marry cannot override a negative one. Therefore, the paying of the 50 shekels occurs even in cases in which marriage cannot take place. Tannaitic tradition exempts payment in cases where the death penalty is incurred.
\n10. her must give the father of the girl fifty (shekels of) silver The author concludes this law with a verbatim quotation from Deut. 22:29. Our author forecloses the option opened in Exod. 22 for the father to accept payment in lieu of a bride price and to refuse to give his daughter in marriage to the man who had already had relations with her. Our scroll regards the payment as a penalty and not a bride price. The author here seeks to restore the moral balance and order, not to rectify the financial loss to the bride\u2019s father.
\n12. A man may not marry the wife of his father These laws follow here because the prohibition of marrying the wife of one\u2019s father appears in Deut. 23:1. This led the author to expand based on Leviticus.
\n12\u201313. A man may not marry the wife of his brother The author continues with Lev. 20:21.
\n13. nor may he uncover his brother\u2019s cloak The author adapts this phraseology based on tigleh in Lev. 18:16 and ervat ahiv gilah in Lev. 20:21. It is difficult to know if the author views this as a repetition of the first clause or a specific prohibition.
\n(whether his brother is) the son of his father or the son of his mother This addition is designed to emphasize that, for the purposes of this law, it does not matter if the brother shares both parents. Even if he is a half-brother, he is forbidden to marry a woman to whom his brother was married. The Rabbis reached the same conclusion (Sifra Kedoshim perek 11:8).
\n14. it is an abomination This prohibition is based on Lev. 20:17 and Deut. 27:22. The scroll replaced the difficult \u1e25esed with \u201cabomination,\u201d which is used in Lev. 20:13 to describe homosexuality.
\n15. for it is immorality This prohibition is based on Lev. 18:12\u201313 and 20:19. These concluding words are taken from other cases in the Bible. CD 8:6\u20137 uses \u201cimmorality\u201d in connection with incestuous relationships.
\n16\u201317. A man may not marry blank his brother\u2019s daughter or his sister\u2019s daughter, for it is an abomination This passage prohibits the marriage of a man to his niece. Such marriages were encouraged in tannaitic teachings (baraita in B. Yev. 62b). The sectarians from Qumran, the Temple Scroll, the Samaritans, the early Christians, the Falashas, and the Karaites forbade it. CD 5:7\u201311 gives the explanation for this prohibition: if a man may not marry his aunt, then a woman may not marry her uncle. This logic was adopted by all but the Pharisees.
\n67:10. and spit in his face Many late Rabbinic sources note a controversy between the Pharisees and Sadducees in understanding this phrase. They claim that the Pharisees understood this requirement as spitting in front of the man. The Sadducees, they note, interpreted this requirement literally (Meg. Ta\u2019an. to 4 Tammuz). We cannot be certain of the Temple Scroll\u2019s view, but it is reasonable to assume that it agreed with the Sadducean literalistic perspective.<\/i><\/a><\/t><\/not><\/ri><\/p>\n